Three versatile modeling processes

[Teacher]

Since we do not work directly with the world in which we live, we create models or maps of it and use them to guide our behavior. It is extremely important for an effective communicator to understand the model or map of the world of his interlocutor. As bizarre as human behavior may seem, it makes sense when viewed in terms of the choices available in that person's model or map of the world. The models we create guide us and allow us to make sense of our experiences. They should be judged not in terms of "good", "bad" or "crazy", but in terms of their usefulness, ie. the effectiveness with which they help us cope with the world around us and respond to it creatively.

The problem is not that people make the wrong choices, but that they lack choices when they need to. Each of us makes the best choices available in his model of the world. However, too many models are impoverished due to the lack of useful choices, as evidenced by the abundance of internal and interpersonal conflicts. "Choices are lacking not in the world itself, but in the models of the individual's world," Grinder and Bandler say.

We create our models through three universal human modeling processes: generalization, exclusion and distortion. These processes allow us to survive, develop, learn, understand and experience the diversity of the world around us. But if we mistakenly confuse our subjective reality with true reality, then these same processes begin to limit us and suppress the abilities that were discussed above.

According to Grinder and Bandler, “ generalization is the process by which elements or parts of a model are separated from the original experience and begin to represent a whole class of phenomena, one example of which was this experience.". With the help of generalizations, we learn to act in this world. The child learns to open the door by pressing the handle. Then he generalizes this experience and, encountering a variety of doors, tries to open them by pressing their handles. Entering a dark room, a person reaches for a switch; he doesn't have to learn a new strategy every time to turn on the light. However, this same process can become a limitation. If a child burned on a stove generalizes that all kitchens are dangerous and should be avoided, then he unnecessarily limits himself. Or if a woman, on the basis of one or two unpleasant experiences, decides that all men are insensitive, then she loses a lot. We all make an infinite number of generalizations that are useful and appropriate in some situations and not in others. A child accustomed in a family to the fact that by crying and whining he will achieve his goal, from his schoolmates by the same behavior, apparently, he will achieve only insults. If he “generalizes” only this behavior to get what he wants, then he may be incapable of more appropriate and rewarding behavior in the company of peers. If a young man only generalizes behavior that earns him the respect of his friends, then he may face great difficulties trying to generate respect and interest from women. Whether a generalization is useful or not should be clarified on a case-by-case basis. which brings him the respect of his friends, then he may face great difficulties trying to arouse respect and interest in himself from women. Whether a generalization is useful or not should be clarified on a case-by-case basis. which brings him the respect of his friends, then he may face great difficulties trying to arouse respect and interest in himself from women. Whether a generalization is useful or not should be clarified on a case-by-case basis.

“The second mechanism that we can use to effectively interact with the world, as well as to our detriment, is an exception. Exclusion is a process in which we selectively pay attention to some aspects of our experience and skip others. ”(Grinder and Bandler).This allows us to focus our consciousness and attention on one part of our experience at the expense of others. So, for example, a person can read a book when people around him are talking, or the TV is on, or music is playing. Thanks to this process, you can cope with the task and avoid being overwhelmed by external stimuli. However, in this case, too, the same process can become a limitation if we exclude parts of the experience necessary to build a complete and rich model of the world. A person who is convinced that everyone is treating him unfairly, but who rules out his own behavior that provokes such a reaction, does not have a useful model of the world. The teacher, who excludes the boredom of the students from his experience, limits not only his own, but also their experience.

“ The third modeling process is distortion. Distortion is the process that allows us to transform the perception of sensory data."(Grinder and Bandler). Without this process, we could not make plans for the future or turn dreams into reality. We give a distorted view of reality in fiction, art, and even science. A microscope, a novel, a painting are all examples of our ability to distort and represent reality differently. The distortion process can also limit us in many ways. Imagine, for example, a person who distorts all criticisms in his address with the reaction: "It is impossible to love me." As a result of such a distortion, all the value of criticism is lost, and often all the possibility of change and development. Or imagine such a common distortion as turning a process into a "thing." When “relationships” are separated from the relationship process, the people involved are harmed. Relationships become something "outside of us", they are considered so,

Since these three universal modeling processes are expressed in linguistic images, a set of linguistic techniques called the Meta-model can be used to change these processes in cases where they limit, rather than expand, choices in human behavior. The meta model achieves this by linking language to the experience it represents. This set of techniques is based on human speech patterns and therefore can be useful in any language-related activity.

The meta-model aims to teach the listener to pay attention and respond to the message form of his interlocutor. The content can change endlessly, but depending on the form of the perceived information, the listener gets the opportunity to react in such a way as to extract the most meaning from the communication. With the help of the Meta-model, you can quickly identify the variety and limitations of both the information offered and the very modeling processes used by the interlocutor.

The meta-model categories can be divided into three classes:

Collection of information;
Limitations of the interlocutor model;
Semantic violations.
Gathering information is obtaining, through appropriate questions and answers, an accurate and complete description of the proposed material. This process also helps to relate the speaker's language to their experience. There are four groups in this class:

Exception;
Lack of an index mark;
Non-specific verbs;
Nominalization.
Exception

By recognizing the exceptions we encounter and helping the person recover the excluded information, we help restore a fuller view of their experience. To recover the missing information, ask (in the appropriate case), "About whom?" or "About what?" in question. For example:
"I do not understand".
"What exactly do you not understand?"

"My daughter doesn't listen to me."
"In what way does she disobey you?"

"Parents are quarreling."
"For what reason are they quarreling?"

"I am disappointed".
"What exactly are you disappointed in?"

"Tired of it!"
"What exactly are you tired of?"

"I do not like him".
"What exactly do you dislike about him?"

Missing index index

The absence of an index is an example of a generalization that limits the human model of the world to the exclusion of the parts and details necessary to have sufficiently varied choices to cope with the world. In this process, a person generalizes experience in such a way that it completely changes and takes on other forms. To restore the missing index, ask (in the appropriate case): "Who exactly?", "What exactly?" For example:
"10th B is ugly."
"Which of the disciples is disgraceful?"
"They say it's best not to mess with him."
"Who exactly says that?"
"I would have thought about others!"
"Who exactly to think about?"

"People won't understand this."
"What kind of people will not understand this?"

"The people are demanding reforms."
"Who exactly is demanding reforms?"

“We buy pies”.
"Who exactly buys?"

Non-specific verbs

Non-specific verbs do not create a clear understanding of the described experience in us. All verbs are non-specific to some extent. However, the verb “kiss” is more specific than the verb “touch”. If someone says that he was offended, then you do not know whether a loved one looked at him angrily, or was pushed on the street. By asking to clarify a verb, you reconnect the person with their experience. To clarify non-specific verbs and adjectives, ask (in the appropriate case): "How exactly?" or "What exactly?" For example:
"He pushed me away."
"How exactly did he push you away?"

"I worry".
"What exactly (how exactly) are you experiencing?"

"She doesn't know how to behave."
"How exactly should one behave?"

"I want to be appreciated."
"How exactly do you want to be appreciated?"

Using the question "How exactly?" you can get information related to the used presentation system.
"I do not understand".
"How exactly do you not understand?"
“I'm not clear” (visual representation).

Vague adjectives

"You are incapable."
"What exactly am I incapable of?"

"He is such a".
"What is he exactly?"
"She is strange".
"What exactly is she doing strange?"
"He's nasty."
"What exactly is nasty about him?"

Nominalizations

Nominalizations are words that are obtained by converting words describing processes (verbs) into nouns. When this happens, the current process becomes a thing or event. Consequently, we are deprived of choices and need to be reconnected with the ongoing dynamic processes of life. According to Grinder and Bandler, a certain transformation of nominalization helps a person understand that what he considered to be a complete and independent event is an ongoing process that can be changed. Nominalizations can be distinguished from regular nouns in several ways. Those who like to visualize can take advantage of the wheelbarrow test. Imagine putting different nouns in a car: a cat, a chair, a car. Now put bad luck, importance, and confusion in the wheelbarrow. As you can see although nominalizations are nouns, they do not denote people, places, or things that can be put in a wheelbarrow. Another way to detect nominalizations is to check if it is possible to put this word instead of a space in the syntax "current _____".
current problem ®nominalization
flowing elephant
flowing chair
current relationship ®nominalization
To convert the nominalization back to a process word, use it as a verb in your answer. For example:
"Fear haunts me."
"What exactly are you afraid of?"

"I regret my decision."
"Is there anything stopping you from making a different decision?"

"We have a bad relationship."
"How do you want to treat him?"

"I have a problem".
"What exactly is making you difficult?"

"We are in a quarrel."
"For what reason did you quarrel?"
"I am in a bad mood".
"How would you like to tune in?"
The next class is "the limitations of the interlocutor model." Here the limitations are revealed, the elimination of which can enrich and expand this model of the world. This class falls into two categories:

Community quantifiers;
Modal operators (mainly modal must operators).

Generality quantifiers

Such words as "all", "everyone", "always", "never", "forever", "nobody" are called community quantifiers. One way to deal with them is to exaggerate the generalizing statement, both in tone of voice and by introducing additional generality quantifiers. By doing this, you help the person find an exception to his generalization and, thereby, endow him with a large number of choices. Another way to directly change is to ask if the person has had experiences that contradict their own generalizations. For example:
"You always do everything wrong."
"Have I ever, ever done anything right?"
Or:
"Have I ever done anything right?"
"You are always deceiving me."
"Am I always cheating on you?"

"You are always arguing with me."
"Do I always, always argue, even when I sleep?"

"It's the same every time!"
"What particular moment are you talking about?"

"I am constantly in a bad mood."
"At what moments does your mood get worse?"

"He's generally harmful."
"What exactly is it harmful?"

"We all say so."
"Who exactly says that?"

Modal Operators

Modal operators are words that indicate the absence of choices: “must”, “cannot”, “necessary”, “must”. Changing these modal operators takes a person beyond the constraints that he has accepted until now. There are two great questions that challenge these limitations: "What's stopping you?" and "What if you do this?" The question "What's stopping you?" returns a person to the past in order to understand on the basis of what experience this generalization was made. The question "What happens if you do this?" forces a person to look into the future and imagine the possible consequences. The importance of these issues should be especially emphasized when someone needs to be helped to achieve a fuller and richer model of the world. For example:
"I can not do it".
"What happens if you do this?"
Or:
"What's stopping you?"
"You have to finish this by Tuesday."
"What if I don't do this?"

"I have to take care of others."
"What happens if you don't take care of them?"

"I can't tell him the truth."
"What will happen if you say it?"
Or:
"What's stopping you from telling him the truth?"
The third category of the Meta-model is “semantic violations”. “Recognizing sentences with semantic violations is necessary in order to help a person find parts of his model that are distorted so much that it impoverishes the experience available to him” (Grinder and Bandler). By changing parts of the model with semantic violations, a person gets more choices and more freedom in interacting with the world. It is because of these parts that he often cannot act as he would have done without them. Semantic violations fall into three classes:

Cause and investigation;
Mind reading;
Loss of the performer.

Source: Changing Bounding Views - Conner Richard.