Brother
Professional
- Messages
- 2,590
- Reaction score
- 511
- Points
- 83
The ability to speak vaguely is one of the most important communication skills. And this skill is needed when creating and maintaining rapport, and when constructing metaphors, and during speech intervention, as well as in a large number of other cases.
When we speak, a person selects an experience that, in his opinion, fits the description. True, this happens as long as he believes that he has a match. The more vague the speech, the more situations it is suitable for. But at the same time, too vague speech can irritate the interlocutor, cause his protest.
- People are wrong.
- No, not everyone is wrong!
What happened? The quite general phrase “people are wrong” was interpreted by the listener as “all people are wrong” and caused his protest. You know, advertising, political slogans, reading newspaper headlines - and you start to be quite critical of various over-generalizations. And if you hear this in the speech of the interlocutor, the rapport breaks.
A similar reaction can be caused not only by overgeneralization, but also simply by unnecessarily vague speech:
- There are people who for some reason neglect certain norms.
- If someone here and there sometimes does not want to live honestly.
Accordingly, when constructing phrases, it is desirable to be able to control the level of ambiguity and not create ambiguity beyond what is necessary . That is, to speak with an optimally appropriate level of (non) specificity .
When we start talking about a set of objects or actions, quantifiers are necessary to understand whether a statement refers to the whole set or only to a part of it. For example, if we say “people”, we can interpret the statement as both “ all people” and “ some people”. Similarly with the verbs: “they are wrong” can be interpreted as “they are wrong in everything, ” and as “ at least in something they are wrong,” and as “they are constantly wrong,” and as “ sometimes they are wrong ”.
- All the speakers laughed.
- Nobody paid attention to him.
- She is constantly surprised.
- Ivan Petrovich was never late.
At the same time, the quantifier of generality can take on the meaning of “for all / everything”: everything, everything, always, eternal, everywhere; and the meaning of "for no one / anything": never, nowhere, nobody, nothing.
- We have something happened.
- have someone without food.
- Men are inconsistent.
- Sometimes Ivanov went to the neighbor from above.
From a grammatical point of view, existential quantifiers can be expressed:
pronoun: someone, something, someone, someone, someone, something, something, something;
verb: it happens, it happens, it happens;
adverb: occasionally, sometimes;
adjectives: rare, possible, probable;
numerals: one, a lot, a little, a little, a lot, a few;
participle: happening, happening, happening.
As you can see, there are many more existential quantifiers in speech than generality quantifiers.
One, both, three, five, half, two thirds.
- Men think about family.
- Some men think about family.
- Most men think about family.
- Some men think about the family.
Likewise for the object (add-on):
- Men think about family.
- Men think about any family.
- Men think about the whole family.
- Men think about someone's family.
For a predicate (predicate), ambiguity almost always exists and concerns: duration, frequency of use, place, reason, etc.
- Men think about family.
- Men at least occasionally think about the family.
- Men constantly think about the family.
- Men think about family somewhere .
- Men for some reason think about the family.
- All employees….
- None of the companies ...
- Half of the employees are against.
- Two thirds of companies lack cash.
- Some employees ...
- Most of the companies ...
In addition, division can also be carried out within the existential quantifiers. For example, words are rare, often, many, most, somewhat more specific than rarely, some, here and there, happen.
- Employees are against.
- Companies are short of cash.
- All people work.
- Everyone works.
- Many workers were against it.
- Many were against it.
At the same time, the uncertainty grows, since it is not clear to which specific set the quantifier belongs. For example, the last phrase, even in a certain context, can mean both “many workers”, and “many workers and their relatives”, and “plant management”, and “most of the city's population”, etc.
True, here the uncertainty increases relative to the level of uncertainty set by the quantifier itself.
Image
- Most physicists agree with this.
- I am constantly assessing the situation on the market.
In this case, it is advisable to very carefully climb into extremes, that is, to use universality quantifiers. The phrase: " all psychologists know this", instead of " most psychologists know this" can be perceived "with hostility." But at the same time, if there is an opportunity to refer to "everyone", the phrase will sound more impressive.
- All members of the leadership want to change the situation.
- We always draw up paperwork correctly.
At the same time, if you want to point out the rarity of the case, it is advisable to reduce the size of the share:
- From time to time you have to reconsider the situation.
“We all make mistakes sometimes .
“ None of us want bad things for you.
If you do not know the details of the situation: often or rarely this happens, many or few people participate in this, then it is advisable to talk about the "average share size", which in this sense is the most undefined:
- It happens that people are offended.
- Some companies are trying to negotiate amicably.
- Women are chatty.
- Now somewhere someone is eating something .
- Sometimes I really want to give up everything .
At the same time, we need to create an expression that would fully correspond to the Client's card and would not create objections to him. In most cases, too precise expressions, except for common knowledge, are not very suitable. That is, universality quantifiers and cardinal numbers are suitable only for tested situations.
- You are all sitting. (Indeed, no one is standing in the room).
- There are two pencils on the table. (If there are really two of them).
At the same time, the statement: "Half of humanity is men" - may not be perceived by some as a truism, and it may be objected to you that "there are less than half of men."
So universality quantifiers and cardinal numbers in truisms are most convenient to use with existential quantifiers.
- Almost half of humanity is men.
- In the life of every woman , there comes a moment when she is ready to explode.
You also need to be careful about the absence of quantifiers, since the most common interpretation is just the universal quantifier. For example, in response to the phrase: "Women are touchy," you can hear: "Well, not all the same!"
As a result, the most commonly used tool is existential quantifiers.
- A rare bird will fly to the middle of the Dnieper.
- In some, the situation is difficult to understand.
- It happens that people misunderstand you.
Now about the use of truisms.
“ Most companies go bust in the end.
- Some write complete nonsense.
- Sometimes it is difficult to cope with yourself.
This phrase allows you to shift the focus of attention to the "eternal" and prepares you to talk about this topic. If the Client is very worried about his actions, then the speech can be started with the phrase:
- All people at least sometimes make mistakes.
This phrase suggests that even quite successful people can make mistakes, and the Client can be successful even if he did something “wrong”.
For greater self-confidence, the Client can be told:
“We can handle almost any problem if we put in the effort.
One and the same situation can have several opposite, but at the same time completely true, views.
- Women are extremely irritable.
- There are very balanced women.
So it all depends on your goal.
- Nobody loves me.
- Men are constantly cheating.
- All good things come to an end.
To destroy such a belief, it is necessary to somehow increase the uncertainty of the statement, which will create additional choices.
“ There is always danger.
- There is always danger for someone somewhere , but even that is not necessary.
- Everyone is deceived.
- Yes, you are right. Everyone is sometimes deceived.
Note that in the latter case, the universality quantifier is the subject, and the existential quantifier refers to the predicate. Actually, you can play on this, since the uncertainty increases when you add an existential quantifier to any part of the message.
- Yes, everybody makes mistakes from time to time.
Accordingly, if there are no quantifiers in the limiting belief, and, apparently, the absence is treated as a generality quantifier - one of the simpler ways is to simply add an existence quantifier.
- [All] men are fickle.
- In fact, only some men are fickle.
- everything and nothing;
- rarely, but constantly;
- two thirds, that is, half;
- happens all the time.
Speech paradoxes can be used both simply to induce confusion, such as when inducing a trance, or as another way to destroy limiting beliefs.
- You hate me.
“ Some of the two of us always treat you well.
- Men are constantly cheating.
- Men cheat all the time, but very rarely .
- Nobody loves me.
“ Most of you don't even know anyone about you.
- He always deceives me.
- It happens that he always deceiving you?
Based on materials from the site of Alexander Lyubimov.
When we speak, a person selects an experience that, in his opinion, fits the description. True, this happens as long as he believes that he has a match. The more vague the speech, the more situations it is suitable for. But at the same time, too vague speech can irritate the interlocutor, cause his protest.
- People are wrong.
- No, not everyone is wrong!
What happened? The quite general phrase “people are wrong” was interpreted by the listener as “all people are wrong” and caused his protest. You know, advertising, political slogans, reading newspaper headlines - and you start to be quite critical of various over-generalizations. And if you hear this in the speech of the interlocutor, the rapport breaks.
A similar reaction can be caused not only by overgeneralization, but also simply by unnecessarily vague speech:
- There are people who for some reason neglect certain norms.
- If someone here and there sometimes does not want to live honestly.
Accordingly, when constructing phrases, it is desirable to be able to control the level of ambiguity and not create ambiguity beyond what is necessary . That is, to speak with an optimally appropriate level of (non) specificity .
Quantifiers
In the language models used in NLP (Meta and Milton models), only the universal quantifier is considered. I want to show that the use of other quantifiers, in particular existential quantifiers, can provide additional tools and expand the possibilities of speech influence of a person practicing NLP or Ericksonian hypnosis.
When we start talking about a set of objects or actions, quantifiers are necessary to understand whether a statement refers to the whole set or only to a part of it. For example, if we say “people”, we can interpret the statement as both “ all people” and “ some people”. Similarly with the verbs: “they are wrong” can be interpreted as “they are wrong in everything, ” and as “ at least in something they are wrong,” and as “they are constantly wrong,” and as “ sometimes they are wrong ”.
Universal quantifiers.
Quantifiers of generality in speech create certain restrictions, since they assert that "the rule has no exceptions." In language they are expressed in words: everything, always, constantly, everyone, nobody, nothing, never , etc.- All the speakers laughed.
- Nobody paid attention to him.
- She is constantly surprised.
- Ivan Petrovich was never late.
At the same time, the quantifier of generality can take on the meaning of “for all / everything”: everything, everything, always, eternal, everywhere; and the meaning of "for no one / anything": never, nowhere, nobody, nothing.
Existence quantifiers.
Existence quantifiers report that "the set is not empty", that some phenomenon or thing exists, while giving speech a shade of uncertainty. In speech they will be expressed in words: some, something, some, some, some, sometimes, once, it happens, it happens , etc.- We have something happened.
- have someone without food.
- Men are inconsistent.
- Sometimes Ivanov went to the neighbor from above.
From a grammatical point of view, existential quantifiers can be expressed:
pronoun: someone, something, someone, someone, someone, something, something, something;
verb: it happens, it happens, it happens;
adverb: occasionally, sometimes;
adjectives: rare, possible, probable;
numerals: one, a lot, a little, a little, a lot, a few;
participle: happening, happening, happening.
As you can see, there are many more existential quantifiers in speech than generality quantifiers.
Cardinal numbers.
Cardinal numbers simply tell you the exact size of a set or part of it. In vague speech, they are used little.One, both, three, five, half, two thirds.
Types of uncertainty
For the subject (subject), uncertainty concerns both the “size of the share” that the quantifier describes and the accuracy of its determination.- Men think about family.
- Some men think about family.
- Most men think about family.
- Some men think about the family.
Likewise for the object (add-on):
- Men think about family.
- Men think about any family.
- Men think about the whole family.
- Men think about someone's family.
For a predicate (predicate), ambiguity almost always exists and concerns: duration, frequency of use, place, reason, etc.
- Men think about family.
- Men at least occasionally think about the family.
- Men constantly think about the family.
- Men think about family somewhere .
- Men for some reason think about the family.
Increasing uncertainty
Let's see how the uncertainty grows when using quantifiers.Universal quantifiers
No exceptions are reported - either "all" or "nothing". Accordingly, there can be no question of any uncertainty. And this is precisely what often causes protests and a desire to check whether there really are no exceptions.- All employees….
- None of the companies ...
Cardinal numbers
Quite specific, but they say, for example, the size of a part, but not who or what exactly this part is included in. So there may be options.- Half of the employees are against.
- Two thirds of companies lack cash.
Existence quantifiers
Even more uncertain - it is unknown not only what is included in the "lobule", but also the exact size of this "lobule".- Some employees ...
- Most of the companies ...
In addition, division can also be carried out within the existential quantifiers. For example, words are rare, often, many, most, somewhat more specific than rarely, some, here and there, happen.
No quantifier.
For the subject (subject) and object, if we are talking about a set, but there is no quantifier, this creates additional uncertainty: whether the statements refer to the whole set or only to a part of it. The absence of a quantifier in front of a predicate (predicate) only increases its uncertainty. But nothing more.- Employees are against.
- Companies are short of cash.
Substitution of semantic words.
Quantifiers can replace semantic words:- All people work.
- Everyone works.
- Many workers were against it.
- Many were against it.
At the same time, the uncertainty grows, since it is not clear to which specific set the quantifier belongs. For example, the last phrase, even in a certain context, can mean both “many workers”, and “many workers and their relatives”, and “plant management”, and “most of the city's population”, etc.
True, here the uncertainty increases relative to the level of uncertainty set by the quantifier itself.
Image
Usage
Share size.
The quantifiers of generality say that "either everything or nothing", and the "share size" described by the quantifiers of existence changes more smoothly: rarely - happens - often - constantly. If we combine, then we get a transition: never - rarely - happens - constantly - always . Along the edges, as is clear, there are generality quantifiers, which at the beginning say that there is nothing like that, and at the end - that this is our “everything”.
- Most physicists agree with this.
- I am constantly assessing the situation on the market.
In this case, it is advisable to very carefully climb into extremes, that is, to use universality quantifiers. The phrase: " all psychologists know this", instead of " most psychologists know this" can be perceived "with hostility." But at the same time, if there is an opportunity to refer to "everyone", the phrase will sound more impressive.
- All members of the leadership want to change the situation.
- We always draw up paperwork correctly.
At the same time, if you want to point out the rarity of the case, it is advisable to reduce the size of the share:
- From time to time you have to reconsider the situation.
“We all make mistakes sometimes .
“ None of us want bad things for you.
If you do not know the details of the situation: often or rarely this happens, many or few people participate in this, then it is advisable to talk about the "average share size", which in this sense is the most undefined:
- It happens that people are offended.
- Some companies are trying to negotiate amicably.
Creation of truisms.
Quantifiers can be effectively used to construct truisms - (sort of) perfectly true statements:- Women are chatty.
- Now somewhere someone is eating something .
- Sometimes I really want to give up everything .
At the same time, we need to create an expression that would fully correspond to the Client's card and would not create objections to him. In most cases, too precise expressions, except for common knowledge, are not very suitable. That is, universality quantifiers and cardinal numbers are suitable only for tested situations.
- You are all sitting. (Indeed, no one is standing in the room).
- There are two pencils on the table. (If there are really two of them).
At the same time, the statement: "Half of humanity is men" - may not be perceived by some as a truism, and it may be objected to you that "there are less than half of men."
So universality quantifiers and cardinal numbers in truisms are most convenient to use with existential quantifiers.
- Almost half of humanity is men.
- In the life of every woman , there comes a moment when she is ready to explode.
You also need to be careful about the absence of quantifiers, since the most common interpretation is just the universal quantifier. For example, in response to the phrase: "Women are touchy," you can hear: "Well, not all the same!"
As a result, the most commonly used tool is existential quantifiers.
- A rare bird will fly to the middle of the Dnieper.
- In some, the situation is difficult to understand.
- It happens that people misunderstand you.
Now about the use of truisms.
Establishing and maintaining rapport.
If you are talking about something that is completely consistent with reality, you most likely fall into the interlocutor's card for sure.“ Most companies go bust in the end.
- Some write complete nonsense.
- Sometimes it is difficult to cope with yourself.
Creation of a certain framework of perception.
- At least sometimes we think about the eternal.This phrase allows you to shift the focus of attention to the "eternal" and prepares you to talk about this topic. If the Client is very worried about his actions, then the speech can be started with the phrase:
- All people at least sometimes make mistakes.
This phrase suggests that even quite successful people can make mistakes, and the Client can be successful even if he did something “wrong”.
For greater self-confidence, the Client can be told:
“We can handle almost any problem if we put in the effort.
One and the same situation can have several opposite, but at the same time completely true, views.
- Women are extremely irritable.
- There are very balanced women.
So it all depends on your goal.
Breaking limiting beliefs.
Universal quantifiers are quite common in limiting beliefs:- Nobody loves me.
- Men are constantly cheating.
- All good things come to an end.
To destroy such a belief, it is necessary to somehow increase the uncertainty of the statement, which will create additional choices.
Adding an existence quantifier.
For example, you can add existence quantifiers to the generality quantifiers and you get "a general rule, but not for all."“ There is always danger.
- There is always danger for someone somewhere , but even that is not necessary.
- Everyone is deceived.
- Yes, you are right. Everyone is sometimes deceived.
Note that in the latter case, the universality quantifier is the subject, and the existential quantifier refers to the predicate. Actually, you can play on this, since the uncertainty increases when you add an existential quantifier to any part of the message.
Replacing the universality quantifier with the existence quantifier.
- People are always wrong.- Yes, everybody makes mistakes from time to time.
Accordingly, if there are no quantifiers in the limiting belief, and, apparently, the absence is treated as a generality quantifier - one of the simpler ways is to simply add an existence quantifier.
- [All] men are fickle.
- In fact, only some men are fickle.
Creation of confusion.
Another way to use quantifiers is to create confusion. Combining different types of quantifiers or using them grammatically or logically is not entirely correct, we can create paradoxical phrases (speech paradoxes).- everything and nothing;
- rarely, but constantly;
- two thirds, that is, half;
- happens all the time.
Speech paradoxes can be used both simply to induce confusion, such as when inducing a trance, or as another way to destroy limiting beliefs.
- You hate me.
“ Some of the two of us always treat you well.
- Men are constantly cheating.
- Men cheat all the time, but very rarely .
- Nobody loves me.
“ Most of you don't even know anyone about you.
- He always deceives me.
- It happens that he always deceiving you?
Based on materials from the site of Alexander Lyubimov.
