Understanding Stammering

Meta-Programs (Unconscious Filters) in the Structure of Personality

Some of the Key Meta-Programs Involved in Stammering.

For the

British Stammering Association

Training Manual by Bobby G. Bodenhamer, D.Min. & L Michael Hall, Ph.D. Trainer: Bobby G. Bodenhamer

Table of Contents Introduction

A Personal Example Original Discovery Sources ACOA PTSD What are Meta-Programs? Meta-Programs Characteristics Continuum Context Dependent Changeable Process Oriented Profiling Beyond "Temperaments" and Types People as Processes What are some Examples of Meta-Programs? What are Driver and Non-Driver Meta-Programs? Where do Meta-Programs come from? Identifying Matrix of Frames How to Meta-State Pattern Can We Change Meta-Programs?
4

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 12 13 14 14 18 19 20

Mastering VIA Meta-Programs

The "Mental/Cognitive Meta-Programs
1) Chunk Size: Global vs. Specific 2) Relationship Sort: Sameness (matching) vs. Difference (mismatching) 3) Representation System Processing: Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Language 4 & 5) Information Gathering Sort: Sensor (Uptime) vs. Intuitor (Downtime, Intime) 6) Perceptual Sort: Black-White Continuum 7) Attribution Sort: Best/ Worst Optimist / Pessimist 8) Perceptual Durability Sort: Permeable / Impermeable 9) Focus Sort: Screeners / Non-Screeners 10) Philosophical Direction: Why / How; Origins / Solutions 11) Reality Structure Sort: Aristotelian Non-Aristotelian; Philosophical / Practical 12) Communication Channel Preference: Verbal Non-Verbal; Digital / Analogue

21

22 23 23 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26 27 27

The "Feeling / Emotional Meta-Programs

13) Stress Coping Sort: Passive (Flight) vs. Aggressive (Fight) 14) Referencing Style: Other Referent (External) vs. Self-Referent (Internal) 15) Emotional State: Associated vs. Dissociated 16) Somatic Response Style: Active, Inactive, Reactive 17a) Convincer Sort: VAK & Language 17b) Repetition Convincer: Never, Automatic, Repetition, Period of Time 18) Emotional Direction Sort: Uni-Directional Multi-Directional 19) Emotional Intensity or Exuberance Sort: Desurgency - Surgency; Timidity Boldness

28 28 28

The "Choosing/Willing" Meta-Programs

20) Motivation Direction: Away From vs. Toward 2

29
29

21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28)

Adaptation Style: Procedure vs. Options Adaptation Sort: Judger (Adaptor) vs. Perceiver (Floater) Modal Operators: Necessity vs. Desire; Impossibility vs. Possibility Preference Sort: People, Things, Activity, Information, Location Goal Striving Sort: Perfectionism - Optimization -Scepticism Buying Sort: Cost/ Convenience/ Quality/Time Responsibility Sort: Under-Responsible Responsible Over-Responsible People Convincer Sort: Distrusting Trusting; Paranoid Naive

29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32

The "Responding" Meta-Programs

29) 30) 31) 32) Rejuvenation of Battery Sort: Extrovert Ambivert Introvert Affiliation/ Management Sort: Individual, Team & Self, or Team Communication Stance: Placator, Blamer, Distractor, Computer, Leveler General Responses: Congruent, Incongruent, Competitive, Cooperative, Polarity, Meta 33) Somatic Response: Active, Reflective, Both, Inactive 34) Work Preference: Things, Systems, People, Information 35) Comparison Sort: Quantitative, Qualitative 36) Knowledge Source Sort: Modeling, Conceptualizing, Demonstrating, Experiencing, Authorizing 37) Completion or Closure Sort: Closure - Non-Closure 38) Social Presentation: Shrewd and Artful - Genuine and Artless 39) Hierarchical Dominance Sort: Power Affiliation Achievement

33
33 33 34 34 35 35 35 35 36 36 36

The "Conceptualizating" Meta-Programs

40) 41) 42) 43) 44) 45) 46) 47) 48) 49) 50) 51) Value Sort: List of Values Temper to Instruction Sort: Compliant vs. Self-Willing Self-Esteem Sort: Conditional vs. Unconditional Self-Esteem Self-Confidence Sort: Low vs. High Self-Confidence Self-Experience Sort: Self-Definitions Using Mind, Body, Emotions, Will, Roles Self-Integrity: Conflicted Incongruity Harmonious Integration Time Processing: Past, Present, Future Time Experience: In-Time vs. Through-Time Time Access Sort: Sequential Random Ego-Strength: Unstable Strong Super Ego Morality Sort: Weak Super-Ego Strong Super Ego Causation Sort: Causeless, Linear Cause-Effect, Multi-Cause Effect, Personal Cause-Effect, External Cause-Effect, Magical Cause-Effect, Correlational

37
37 38 38 39 39 40 40 40 41 41 41 42

Helps:
Changing Meta-Programs Recognizing Meta-Programs Exercises Appendix A: Meta-Programs in Five Categories Appendix B: Meta Program Template Appendix C: Summary of Meta-Programs 43 46 49 54 56 58

Introduction When you walked into a new restaurant, where did you first send your brain? Was it to the dining room itself? Was it to the people that were there? Was it to the 'things' (chairs, table, bar, etc.) in the room? Was it to how the room was set up? How did you know to send your brain there? It is because you are unconsciously running a Meta-Programs that you learned probably in your childhood that tells your brain what is important to you?
3

"People", "Places", "Things", Etc. And, when you enter a new place, your program will automatically send your brain right to the object of the program. When you go to do a project, do you first see the big picture, the goal of the project? Or do you look for the details and build from them the larger picture. You just follow the details to where they take you (Scientific minds tend to move from the small to the large - inductive thinking.). Are you more motivated by what you "want" or are you more motivated because you wish to get away from something you find uncomfortable, even painful? Do you move more easily toward that which you want or are you more motivated by what you wish to get away from? Suppose you are purchasing a new car. Is it more important to you that the car looks good to you; or that it feels good to you or because you have done a lot of research as to the cars dependability and longevity? How do you go about understanding something new? Do you look first for similarities and match up the new with what you already know? Or do you first check out the differences? Or do you first do one pattern and then immediately do the other? How do you know to do these things? How does your brain know where to send your focus? The answer is that you know how unconsciously to do certain things based on unconscious mental filters. You have been developing these mental filters throughout your life with your childhood playing an important part in the learning. We call these mental filters "Meta-Programs". The mental programs are "meta" because these programs act "above" your thinking leading you to focus on whatever the Meta-Programs chooses for you to focus on. A Personal Example For many years I would not share with my wife many of the new projects that was being planned at the church I served as pastor. Early in our marriage I had learned that if I shared a new project with her, she would find something wrong with it and criticize it. At least I took it as criticism. It only took a small number of those experiences before I shut down. I decided I wouldnt share with her rather than get such negative feedback (which is not a good thing for a marriage!). Later when I learned about the Meta-Programs, I discovered that she wasnt being critical, but simply that her brain sorts information in this way. Understanding that she sorts for differences by mis-matching totally changed my thinking and feeling. So the next time I presented some new wild idea and she noticed for how it wouldnt work, I paced her state and experience, You have to find out what is wrong with something before you can look at what is right about it, dont you? Why yes, doesnt everybody? Actually, no. But now that I know that sorting for differences and mis-matching simply describes how you think, and that you are not trying to be mean or trying to hurt me. I can hear it now without feeling hurt! People! If we could only figure them out. When we dont, we find them frustrating, difficult to understand, difficult to deal with, and difficult to communicate with. Every day we hear the frustration of not being able to figure out people: "I give up, I just can't figure him out!" "Why in the world does she act that way? You'd have to be a psychologist to figure it out." "Why does my supervisor have to act so secretive about office memos? He's so paranoid these days. I don't understand him."
4

"Go figure. I haven't a clue. When she gets into those moods of hers you never know what to expect..." "You're doing that because you're just trying to get back at me! I know your kind! So stop it, will you?" Figuring out people ... we all attempt it. Living in human society demands it, doesnt it? So we spend a good part of everyday second-guessing people, mind-reading motives and intentions, and even psychoanalyzing without a license those with whom we live. We look for temperament patterns. We study books on "reading people." We attend relationship seminars on personality types. We do all kinds of things in this effort to simply try to figure out people. Yet what good does it do us? How effective are we really in understanding the strange and weird world that people live in, and out of which they come? Do you even have yourself figured out? Do I even know my own patterns and processes? Original Discovery Meta-Programs have a unique origin. They arose from discovering how classic NLP didnt work.

Meta-Programs have a unique origin. They arose from discovering how classic NLP didnt work. Meta-Programs enable us to a large extent to know when, how, and why NLP Patterns work and when they do and when they dont. They originated with Leslie Cameron Bandler. She was doing classical NLP when she found that some of the patterns did not work with everyone. Woodsmall (1988) says that while doing "textbook NLP" with individuals Leslie discovered that sometimes the processes failed to achieve their objective. The patterns that sometimes worked magic at other times didnt go anywhere. Why not? What interfered was the persons Meta-Programs. This failure excited her. Using it, Leslie and Richard ultimately discovered that these "failures" brought to light the initial list of NLP Meta-Programs. This suggests the powerful role of Meta-Programs in how they can interfere and even sabotage powerful change processes. Upon discovering these distinctions, Leslie presented them in a seminar in Chicago. Among the first to learn them were Annie Linden and Steve and Connirae Andreas. While Leslie invented these distinctions within the context of therapy, Roger Bailey and Ross Stewart later adapted the Meta-Programs as a personality profile to create a powerful use for them in business known as the LAB profile. Woodsmall then expanded the Meta-Programs by integrating into them the four distinctions of the Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory. Later he collaborated with Tad James and co-authored one of the first NLP books on Meta-Programs, Time Line Therapy and the Basis of Personality (1988). The reading of this book was my first introduction to Meta-Programs. About the same time Ed Reese and Dan Bagley (1988) applied the Meta-Programs to profiling people in the context of selling. Shelle Rose-Charvet (1995) used them to highlight how to use Meta-Programs in language for persuasion and related them to
5

various cultures (Canadian, American, European, French, etc.) showing how they influence groups of people. Michael Hall writes. Building upon the NLP model of "personality" (along with formulations in GeneralSemantics, and development in Cognitive and Perceptual Psychology), we (Bodenhamer and Hall, 1997) expanded and extended the Meta-Programs to create the most extensive and exhaustive work on Meta-Programs. We took up the NLP theme that Meta-Programs are not about what people are in a static, permanent, fated, and unchangeable way, but that they describe how people function. As a model of human functioning Meta-Programs allow us to create a "personality" profile that takes context into account and simultaneously allows for growth, development, transformation, and empowerment. Sources They arise from both nature and nurture from natural dispositions and tendencies and from learning experiences. Meta-Programs, as we experience them, also arise from the solidification of Meta-States (The results of layering one thought on top of another thought such as 'fearing your fear, See Figure 1, next page). They begin as a learned, taught, and/or coached way to think, sort, perceive, etc., and eventually become our mental program for such. As solidified Meta-States resulting from the constant layering of the mind, they are ways of thinking and conceptualizing that have gotten in our eyes.

They arise from both nature and nurture from natural dispositions and tendencies and from learning experiences. Meta-Programs, as we experience them, also arise from the solidification of Meta-States.

Figure 1 Creating a Meta-Programs by Layering

ACOA Consider the person who grew up in a home of an alcoholic. Sadly, there are many ACOA (Adult Children Of an Alcoholic) living in our society today. Most, if not all, carry scars from growing up in a home where dad (or mom) would come home most of the time drunk. When he drank he was extremely verbally abusive to everyone. Sometimes, dad's anger would end up with him cursing and slapping their mother. These memories learned at high peak emotion sear onto the brain. In addition, mother's enabling role left her spending most of her time "trying to keep the peace". Children were taught to do everything for daddy hoping to keep him from becoming so abusive. In this context, the children constantly lived on eggshells. Furthermore, these children learn not to express emotions but to stuff them. They learned that the world is an unfriendly place and you always have to "keep your guard up" for "daddy might come home drunk". "Damaged goods" describe the ACOA. From such experience several Meta-Programs may very well form. A worse-case scenario thinker or a pessimist is obviously one of these unconscious filters that operate 24/7 in an unconscious need to keep the ACOA ready for the next shoe to drop. Because the child learns to "stuff their emotions", the ACOA will continue stuffing his/her emotions resulting in a person who has a low super-ego -- someone unable to function at a level that requires one to maintain boundaries. Furthermore, the ACOA will tend to alternate between thinking about the past and worrying about the future. Not only will their attention be focused a great deal on the past but they tend to focus only on the bad things (worse case scenario) and they will, usually unconsciously, associate into those past bad memories. By associating the ACOA is mentally back reliving those awful memories. They are in a very real sense operating from the mind of a child. That is one of the reasons that such thinking seems so illogical to most people. You also have a prescription for depression: 1) Spend much of your time focusing on the past. 2) Only recall the worse memories. 3) Mentally go back and re-live those memories by re-associating into them. This way the ACOA really feels the experience and
7

this happens over and over which results in the memories becoming stronger and stronger until the ACOA finds themselves locked into a severe depression. In the more extreme cases, the ACOA will find themselves in the Psychiatrist's office trying to break through a mind-set of Dissociative Disorder. The ACOA will break under re-living the pain of the past over and over. So, they will unconsciously do something very familiar to them-- they will mentally just go someplace else. Their home is unbearable so in order to survive, they will imagine themselves somewhere else. One client imagine that she was a beautiful butterfly flying freely among the flowers of the meadow. Another ACOA who was also sexually abused as a child, imagined herself sitting on the refrigerator observing her sick family. She spent much of her life dissociated from life sitting on the refrigerator. She felt safe in that position. I remember so well when she first came to my NLP class at our local community college-- Gaston College, Dallas, North Carolina. When I came to teaching the difference between association and dissociation, she got really upset. It took that full year for all of us in the class to convince her that dissociation, when used properly, was a good thing and not a bad thing. She only knew it as being detached from reality and very bad. Later we will study this Meta-Programs closely. Basically, when you associate into a memory, you do not see yourself. You are mentally present in the memory seeing, hearing and feeling as you did at the installation of the memory. Dissociation on the other hand, means that you do see yourself in the memory. From your present age and in the present moment you view the younger you at a distance. And that is quite useful for it helps the person to operate from a state of present reality. PTSD Oft times the ACOA that has suffered greatly will find themselves diagnosed as suffering from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). And I fully concur with this diagnosis. A couple years ago I worked with two brothers who were just a few months back from the war in Iraq. Both suffered from PTSD. I taught them how to mentally come back home just as they had physically come back home. In PTSD the person, when properly triggered, will in a split second mentally be back in the war seeing it from their own eyes (associated), hearing the explosions, and smelling the smells of war. Mentally they are there. With the two brothers, I taught them how to see themselves in Iraq with the mortar rounds falling around one and with the other, he saw the Humvee in front of his Humvee explode after striking an IED. He was pulling the dead and wounded from the Humvee. This greatly traumatized this young marine. The burns were terrible and smelled horrible. With both of these Marines, the therapy involved primarily the leading of them to mentally come back home-- to dissociate (see themselves there) from those horrific war memories and to reassociate in the safety of home. That intervention proved crucial to their healing. Indeed, by leading your PTSD clients as well as other clients who suffer from similar disorders, dissociate them from the experience and using your hypnotic linguistic skills in offering suggestions, anchor them fully safe in the present. It will work wonders for most people. With both of these Marines, the therapy involved primarily the leading of them to mentally come back home-- to dissociate from those horrific war memories and to re-associate in the safety of home.

Hopefully, this description of how Meta-Programs can be useful in describing the structure of a pathology. And, they can be utilized in bringing healing to the person as you teach them how not to be frozen into a specific Meta-Program's category, but to live their lives flexible as to what Meta-Programs they choose to live out of. The book The Structure of Personality: Modelling "Personality" Using NLP and Neuro-Semantics by Hall, Bodenhamer, Bolstad and Hamblett is divided into two parts. The first part describes the NLP and Neuro-Semantic Models for "Understanding the Structure of "Personality". The second part applies these models in understanding both the structure of several "Personality Disordering" and how they can be both de-structured and re-structured. MetaPrograms are critical in discovering how any mind-body state works and how it can be changed to better serve the client. What are Meta-Programs? Meta-Programs are patterns for perception. Think back to when you began reading this training manual. What was your frame-of-mind? Did you take time to access an effective frame-of-mind that would support your learning, retention, and enjoyment? Does your frame of mind support you in this reading for understanding, memory, and use? Or, were you in a passive, bored, upset, or distracted frame of mind undermining the effectiveness of your learning? We can only focus on one thing at a time. How does our brain decide what one thing we are going to focus on? When our brain leaves that "one thing", how does it decide what next to think on? A Meta-Programs unconsciously sent your brain to that one thing you are focusing on. Meta-Programs are frames of mind. Each Meta-Programs in this workshop specifies one of many frames-of-mind that you could adopt in processing information, feeling that information, and/or making choices from it? Each describes a distinction of consciousness that works as a perceptual filter lens. Think of Meta-Programs as different frames-of-mind that color the way we see and experience the world. Every person you meet today, that you engage in conversation, that you seek to influence, or who tries to influence you operates from some frame-of-mind. As such, these framesof-mind as filtering programs lie above and beyond ("meta") their specific content and determine the persons perspective, way of valuing, style of thinking and emoting, and/or pattern of choosing and behaving. Meta-Programs are those programs in our eyes (minds) by which we have learned to filter the world. The very name indicates their function "meta" means "over" or "above". Since Meta-Programs are those mental "Programs" that are "over" or "above" other mental programs (beliefs, values, understandings, other Meta-Programs, etc.), they are responsible for much of the what runs or controls our thought processes. As perceptual filters, our Meta-Programs identify what we sort for, pay attention to, look for, see, etc. As perceptual filters, our Meta-Programs identify what we sort for, pay attention to, look for, see, etc. Because they serve as an unconscious filtering system, some refer to them as "Neuro-Sorts". This term describes just how they function as a means for our sorting through the halls of our unconscious mind to find the information that we at that time need. We can only focus on one thing at any given moment. What determines that "one thing" that we are focusing on? Meta-Programs have a whole lot to do with that "one thing" you are focusing on at any given moment.Meta-Programs Characteristics

What can we say about Meta-Programs as a whole. Meta-Programs as mental processes tend to follow certain characteristics. These characteristics apply to most all of the MetaPrograms. Continuum: Most of the Meta-Programs operate on a continuum. When there are choices on either end or pole this can lead to extreme versions of the particular Meta-Program and the creation of a Driver Meta-Program. When a person can easily move back and forth along the continuum, they have a high degree of flexibility of consciousness. This gives them more choices and power of response in different contexts. Context Dependent: Meta-Programs shift and change depending on the context. This gives us the ability to operate with different Meta-Programs in different contexts, environments, situations, etc. This also explains why Meta-Programs should not be used or confused with personality traits that define what a person is. These are not written in stone. They are descriptions of how we behave... mentally and perceptually to the world. They are descriptions of how we have learned to sort and process information. Rather than solidified personal traits these are ways of functioning, ways of running our brain. Changeable: Meta-Programs are changeable. The degree of changeability, on the other hand, depends on several factors: our beliefs about changing them, our desire and motivation, our willingness to give change processes a chance, the skill of the person working with us, the patterns used in bringing about a change, etc. Any and every Meta Program can be changed when theres a desire and a skilled practitioner. Process Oriented: Meta-Programs refers to something we do, not what we are. Its how we see the world. Meta-Programs are not for pigeonholing people. Profiling: Meta-Programs are valuable for picking the right people, for reading people. They offer us a way to find the leverage point for change. Through observation and listening, we can identify the key Meta-Programs the person uses. Thus, written personality test usually are not used by NLP Practitioners. Summary:

Meta-Programs are those programs in our eyes. Discovered by Richard and Leslie. Sources both nature & nurture Continuum most operate on a continuum Context Dependent shift according to context Changeable changeability depend on several factors Process Oriented refer to something we do Profiling valuable for picking the right people

Beyond "Temperaments" and Types In this introductory workshop, you will discover that we have moved far beyond all the models and instruments that try to figure people out by classifying them according to types
10

and temperaments. Since the early Greeks with their model of the four basic temperaments (humors), hundreds of models of personality typing have arisen. The authors base these types upon the assumption that people walk around with permanent traits inside them explaining "why he is the way he is." If youre looking for that kind of thing, you will find none of it here. Rather than assumptions of permanent inherent traits, we work from a different assumption. Our premise is that people are forever learning, growing, developing, changing, and so are forever in process. This fits with the comment of Richard Simon, editor of The Family Therapy Networker, "People are not nouns but processes." (March/April 1997). This means that this workshop looks not at what people are, in some absolute, unchangeable trait way, but how people actually operate. How is this person thinking and feeling? How is this person talking, acting, and relating to other people? What processes and patterns describe this person's perceptual style? How is this person focusing his attention? What information is she attending to? What human software (ideas, beliefs, etc.) does this person use in processing information? "People are not nouns but processes." Richard Simon

By focusing attention on how people actually function (think, act, and feel), we shift from the idea of types to behavior, performance, and states. For us, this is critically important. It enables us to move beyond the cookie-cutter approach in understanding and working with people. There is no one-fits-all approach nor simplistic four patterns for all people. People are unique. This new approach allows us to think about people in a new way. Now we can consider the levels and dimensions of actual behavior as we examine a persons Thinking or cognitive processing. Emoting or somatizing ideas into ones body. Speaking and languaging self and others. Behaving in terms of responding, gesturing, relating, etc. Meaning-making, moving up the higher self-reflexive levels. When we do this, we discover not what a person is in an absolute sense, but how a person actually operates in any given context at a given time. Why have we shifted to this paradigm about human nature? What is the value of this new focus?

Recognizing how a person works enables us to figure out that persons model of the worldhis or her internal or mental paradigm. It is from that inner mapping that we live and move and have our being as we navigate reality. This increases understanding exponentially as it enlightens us about where the person is coming from. It also increases our sense of empowerment. Thats because when I know how someone works, I can match that process style and connect with him or her. At this point we can run a quality check and make choices about how we want to function.
11

How effectively does this way of thinking work? How well do I like this way of emoting and somatizing my ideas? How desirable do I find this way of talking and languaging? How resourceful does this way of sorting behaving actually work? When I know how someone works, I can match that process style and connect with him or her.

People as Processes Dealing with such processes enables us to change, alter, and transform any process that does not work well. Conversely, when we mentally map people in terms of their traits and the way they "are," we experience the world as static and unchanging. We say things like, "Well, that's the way I am!" "I'm just stuck with dealing with him, because that's the way he is." The problem in feeling stuck rests in these erroneous maps. In this work we start from a much more empowering presupposition. "People are not nouns, but processes." Alfred Korzybski said that when you take a label and stick it on a person, then the deceptively alluring, but passive verb "is" tricks us to create a primitive form of unsanitythe "is" of identity. "I am a failure." "She is arrogant." "What can you expect from a bleeding-heart liberal." "Communists are like that." "She's heartless because she is a republican." "He's a sanguine!" "They are sadist-masochists." Etc. Alfred Korzybski said that when you take a label and stick it on a person, then the deceptively alluring, but passive verb "is" tricks us to create a primitive form of unsanity the "is" of identity.

Whats are some more Examples of a Meta-Programs? Consider a person's strategy for "reading." On the surface it seems like a simple task that involves a primary state. Yet reading is not that simple. We begin with the stimulus of words in the form of a visual external. "The little brown and white cat fought furiously with the dog..." We then take those scribbles of ink on paper and use them to anchor internal representations of their referents on the screen of our mind. Using past referents and
12

constructed representations we "make sense" of words by recreating on the theater of our mind the sights, sounds, sensations, smells, and tastes. We create a movie in our mind from the words to think about something not present. So far, so good. This is where Meta-Programs come in. If we are using the Meta-Programs of information size (Scope, #3), this governs whether our mind processes information by seeking to globally understand "the big picture" or whether we first focus on receiving and inputting specific details. Do you recall the color of the cat? I love to tell the story of my trying to find the salt shaker in our kitchen cabinet. As I stood looking and scanning for it, my wife Linda came over to the cabinet and immediately picked up the salt shaker which happened to be immediately in front of me. This was prior to her understanding Meta-Programs, so she jokingly commented on my inability of seeing something directly in front of me, You are sick! she exclaimed. Having recently learned about Meta-Programs, I responded, Actually, Im not sick, I just see things globally. Thats why I cant see the trees for the forest! You, on the other hand, can see each and every tree as you so choose, but will not see the forest! My partner in this work, L. Michael Hall, also more global, early on found working at the detail level of proofing an article or book challenging and unpleasant. Zooming down to notice every letter was not his natural style when reading. It served him well when he first learned to speed-read. That came easy. Once when he began an Evelyn Woods Reading course, he tested at 3500 words a minute. Thats where more people seek to get to by the end of the course. But what confused him at the time was how could he both read quickly and comprehensively and not do well in spelling. How, he wondered, could he see and recognize words on a page and read quickly and yet in another way not see them at all? This later became clear when he discovered the global / specific MetaProgram's distinction (Scope Meta-Programs, #3). He now says, Today I can spend time proofing texts and can shift consciousness from the whole forest down to the individual trees. Yet I find it more work than play. Shifting and keeping my awareness to the detailing level takes effort. If I let the tiniest slip in awareness occur so that an idea pops in, then zoomIm off and running at a conceptual level thinking about the meaning rather than noticing spelling details.

What are Driver and Non-Driver Meta-Programs? As our style of processing information and then responding, Meta-Programs occur along a continuum. This continuum perspective enables us to distinguish the degree or intensity of a given Meta-Programs in our perceiving. A driving Meta-Programs refers to those perceptual filters we habitually over-use. As we over-use the Meta-Programs structure for thinking about most things it becomes our default thinking pattern. If, for example we habitually think in terms of details, matching, and visual, these become our driving Meta-Programs. Not only will they color the world we live in, they will determine what we notice as well as what we delete from attention. Driver MetaPrograms arise when our perceptual filter operates at only one end of a continuum.
13

By way of contrast, whenever we mind things in the middle of a given Meta-Programs continuum or can flexibly move from one pole to the other, that Meta-Program will not be a driver. Neither response would drive or govern us. Instead we would experience a flexibility of consciousness allowing us to use either distinction of that Meta-Program depending upon the time, context, environment, purpose, etc. Where do Meta-Programs come From? Meta-Programs come from repeated thoughts-and-emotions, from our mental-andemotional states that we habituate. The ACOA mentioned earlier is an excellent example of this phenomena. Through days, weeks, months and years the father of this poor child subjects her to horrible verbal abuse and sometimes physical abuse. Thus, her childhood and much of her teen years are filled with the layering of pain upon top of pain (See Figure 1, page 7). And, this layering of one experience on top of another experience works mathematically but not as addition but multiplication and beyond. A Gestalt called a MetaProgram is formed and being a Gestalt, the results of all the layering are many times greater than the sum of its parts. We create our Meta-Programs or perceptual filters as we layer one idea (a thought-feeling state, and so meta-stating) upon another. So we create the most basic Meta-Programs of optimisticpessimistic by bringing the idea of optimism (or pessimism) to our information process. When we set optimism over our thinking in general, it becomes a filtera perceptual filter. We can do this by bringing the idea of detailing to our thinking. Or we could bring its opposite, trying to get the big picture and then create global or specific Meta-Programs. We could meta-state matching for sameness as our frame or its opposite, mis-matching for difference. We could layer the idea of needing and wanting a procedure, or its opposite, valuing coming up with new alternatives (options). Primary states primarily represent an outside object. Our thoughts; our states are about what is out in the real world. Our reality first arises from our primary states, which, when we step back from them and think about our primary states, they become our meta-states. Meta-states unlike primary states, reference another thought or another state thus it is all an inside job. Meta-state in turn, formulate our Meta-Programs. This brings us back to states. A primary state is a mind-body-emotion state about something in the world out there. Like primary colors from which all other colors come, there are basically about twelve primary states: attraction and aversion, tense and relax, joy and sadness, fear and anger, lust and disgust, love and apathy. These generally have reference to some trigger or stimulus out there. Now states generally come and go. We experience dozens and dozens of states every day. By way of contrast, Meta-Programs like meta-states are more enduring psychological phenomena. This is what can make them more challenging to change if you dont know what youre doing. When you do know how they work and what youre doing to change them, we can change them most of time. Some require much more work carried out through much practice. A meta-state, as any mind-body-emotional state of awareness involves thoughts-feelings and physiology. A "Meta-State" is meta to a primary state in that it is not about anything out there in the world as are primary states. It is the thinking about another state. A "Meta-State" is an inside job. It is in this way that a meta-state transcends the primary state and its composition of thoughts-and-emotions (i.e., fear, anger, like, dislike, calm,
14

tense, joyful, miserable). It first transcends and then includes the primary state within itself. As a state-about-a-state, a meta-state refers to our mind-body experience of a state. So a meta-state may be fear of anger, feeling guilty about having fun, being excited about learning, fearing fear, loving anger, etc. A "Meta-State" is meta to a primary state in that it is not about anything out there in the world as are primary states. It is the thinking about another state. A "Meta-State" is an inside job.

The mechanism that enables us to build meta-states in the first place is reflexivity. Our self-reflexive consciousness enables us to reflect back onto ourselves, to think and feel about our thoughts and feelings. When we do, we move to a meta-level to our own experience. It is this spiraling and going-in-circles reflexivity that makes our mind rich, complex, and systemic. We are a class of life that not only thinks, but we think about our thinking. We not only feel, but we feel about our feelings. We also think about our feelings and feel about our thinking. And so it goes, layer upon layer. The mechanism that enables us to build meta-states in the first place is reflexivity. Our self-reflexive consciousness enables us to reflect back onto ourselves, to think and feel about our thoughts and feelings.

Via our self-reflexive consciousness, we think-and-feel about levels and layers of other thoughts and feelings and so set frame upon frame to construct a matrix of meaning around things. We do this about all kinds of things. This is what creates the higher level or meta Meta-Programs, the semantic Meta-Programs operate at even higher level perceptual filters. Here we put all of our valuesour meta-states beliefs about what we deem important. Of course, once we have a Meta-Programs, it becomes our style for processing other information and events. As a Meta-Program, it governs how and what we attend and what we leave out. Because we can only focus on one thing at a time, Meta-Programs set the frames as to what we select and de-select to focus on. Meta-Programs inform us about what to delete from our awareness as well as what to focus on. So once installed, MetaPrograms operate as self-fulfilling prophecies, validating for us precisely what we expect to see. Reflexivity, as a mechanism, gives us the ability to make meta-moves to higher logical levels. As we reflexively move to such levels, this experience habituates and becomes incorporated as our perceptual frames-of-reference. Examples of self-reflexive consciousness in everyday life include fearing fear and so becoming paranoid, feeling
15

afraid of ones anger and so turning ones fear against oneself, feeling guilty for feeling afraid of ones anger, or feeling hopeless about ever changing my guilt about my fear of my anger. (See Figure 2) When we do not effectively manage our reflexivity, we create torturous meta-states or dragon states that turn against us.

As we transcend one state and include it with the framework of a higher state, this builds up the meta-structures of our Matrix of frames. Eventually these meta-states become the Matrix of our mind-body system, and into it all of our states and frames of meaning are embedded. Our primary states are embedded within the larger context of these embedded meta-states. Together as we meta-state layer upon layer of frames, the entire Matrix becomes a canopy of consciousness to us. Imagine embedding all of your states and meta-states with acceptance and appreciation. Imagine that such states are meta-stated up the levels until they become the canopy over all of your states and experiences, over all of our emotions negative and positive. At that point, appreciation would operate as one of our primary perceptual filters, as one of our highest Meta-Programs (See Figure 3). How would that change things for you in terms of your personality, character traits, beliefs, and style for orienting oneself in the world? Would you like that? Would that be transformational? Figure 3 Matrix of Frames that Become our Canopy

16

If we build a matrix of meta-states into the structure of our consciousness, we will not have to access the state of appreciation, acceptance, or whatever. Appreciation will come to operate as a higher Meta-Programsas our way of perceiving the world. We no longer have to access the state of respect for people, this canopy of consciousness would simply govern all of our thinking-and-emoting about peoplerespect will operate as our selforganizing frame. So what is a meta-state and how does it differ from a Meta-Programs? A Meta-Programs is a solidified meta-state. It begins with the content details of our stories, then it becomes a meta-stating process, then eventually it becomes a style or way of thinking, a MetaPrograms.

A Meta-Programs is a solidified meta-state. It begins with the content details of our stories, then it becomes a meta-stating process, then eventually it becomes a style or way of thinking, a Meta-Program.

Identifying a Matrix of Frames As human beings we have already meta-stated many canopies of consciousness or layers of embedded frames. The difference is that we typically do not do so with acceptance, appreciation, and esteem, or other such positive resources (See Figure 4). More often we do so with contempt, blame, fear, anger, dread, skepticism, pessimism, etc. As those who are self-reflexive by nature we have already generated many thoughts-about-ourthoughts and inevitably experience the habituation of our thought-feelings so that we already operate out of a Matrix or canopy of consciousness. Figure 4

17

Given this, we do not have to develop the ability to use our reflexivity. We already can do that. We need to develop consciousness about how we are using our reflexivity, discover the constructs we have built, and evaluate them for ecology do they serve us? Then we can decide which ones to eliminate, transform, update, or build. This understanding about meta-states creating and solidifying into Meta-Programs explains the difficulty we have in helping someone who operates out of a primary state or a meta-state embedded in a canopy of pessimism. How do you help someone when the person filters everything you say through a filter of pessimism? What do we do when the most optimistic, hopeful, encouraging, and helpful suggestions get filtered out and re-interpreted in a negative way? How do we interrupt this pattern of pessimism? How do we interrupt it if it is a meta-state of pessimism? How do we get through to a person operating from a meta-state of pessimism that generates a thick and dark canopy of consciousness? How to Meta-State Pattern 1. Identify and access target state for change.

18

For example, what happens when you apply courage or faith to the fear? If youre having trouble, then first fully entertain the state of fearing something. Good. Now, put that thought-emotional state aside for a moment. 2. Identify and access a resourceful state. Now access a state of courage or of faith and apply the courage or faith to the fear of blocking and stuttering. 3. Identify the structure of the "application" How do you do that? How do you apply one state to another? Some people apply one thought to another by simply using the words and language. Others prefer to take a visual image of both states and do it visually by moving the image of fear or other problem state to the image of courage to faith merge the two images together until they are both one. Yet others prefer to do it kinesthetically as they move the location of the feeling of fear to the feeling of courage or faith again, the two become one. And, you can combine two of them such as getting a visual representation of courage and visualize courage penetrating the negative feeling of fear, etc. which may be in your chest or any place else. What happens when a visual image of courage penetrates the feeling of fear? This procedure works great with those of religious faith. Oft time the image they will have for their resource state will be extremely bright. You can make the shift in two ways: 1) Image the bright light coming into the feeling of fear; or, 2) move the image of fear to the bright light.

19

Can We Change Meta-Programs? Are our Meta-Programs susceptible to change? You bet! We are not stuck with our MetaPrograms. You and I are more than our Meta-Programs. Our current Meta-Programs only reveal the way we have learned to structure and pattern our thinking up until now. They only reveal how we have learned to do so up to this point in time. Yet as a dynamic, ongoing process of patterning and structuring our thoughts-emotions, we can always alter that process. To that end in our book, Figuring Out People, we have an entire chapter detailing the process of transforming Meta-Programs. Summary Why don't we all behave, speak, value, feel, or think the same way? Because we use different perceiving patterns for thinking that we call MetaPrograms. We have meta-stated ourselves into having different MetaPrograms. Everybody doesn't think the same way. We all know that. Nor does everybody feel the same way, or value the same things. Its equally obvious that not everybody talks or acts the same way. We differ. We radically differ in each of these facets of functioning. As our operational systems, so to speak, Meta-Programs exist at a logical level above our conscious thoughts and emotions (primary states). MetaPrograms describe our sorting styles which we have learned to use in thinking about things. As higher level programs for thinking-and-emoting, Meta-Programs are for the most part outside or above consciousness. As a model, The Meta-Program Model is a cognitive-behavioral model that describes how we manage our awareness which explains how and why we live in different internal worlds. As men and women who inevitably map the realities we live in, we structure our conceptual worlds and then habituate those structures or MetaPrograms. But theres no law that demands that we always, and only, so structure information. We can choose to use different perceiving patterns. We can choose to create and live in different worlds.

Mastering VIA Meta-Programs

Meta-Level analysis of Meta-Programs
20

In order to simplify somewhat these many Meta-Programs, we have sub-divided them into four groupings. Now these divisions are not absolute but are so used so as to organize the Meta-Programs. Because these processes occur at a level above the primary level of everyday life, where we process content, they concern the structure of perceiving itself. Meta-Programs map meta-level functions. The categories in Figure 4 suggest that we have a wide range of ways to pattern or structure our experience of the world. As we engage in mapping cognitively, emotionally, conatively (Semanticizing Style), and conceptually or semantically, we generate our personal style or "personality". To change Meta-Programs means that to some degree you change your personality. Figure 5

21

THE MENTAL/ COGNITIVE META-PROGRAMS 1) Chunk Size: GLOBAL VS. SPECIFIC These terms refer to the size of the chunks (computer programming language) of information that we need in order to understand something. Chunk size can range from very small details to very large general understandings. On a scale from Specificity to Generality, people think in terms of the small supporting details and specifics that make something up to the big picture, globally, looking for the gestalt. This leads to Inductive thinking (moving up the scale) to Deductive thinking (moving down the scale).

What size of information do you tend to prefer when you are learning, discovering, or seeking to understand something? What direction of reasoning do you feel most comfortable with? Inductive or Deductive? What do you want first when you hear something new, the big picture or the details? Figure 6 Levels of Thought & Language

High Abstractions:

Level We move up using hypnotic language.

Global We move up the scale by asking about meaning and What does that meaning significance by asking about various meta-levels: decisions, mean to you? identifications, intentions, outcomes, etc. For what purpose? When we move up we get into the higher Meta-Model What intention do you distinctions: nominalizations, Complex Equivalences, Causehave in this...? Effects, Presuppositions, etc. By having this, what does When we move Up & Down we elicit the Structure of Intuition. having this give you that is even more Deductive Intuition involves taking a general principle & important? applying or relating it to specific situations. Inductive Intuition involves taking lots of details and When we move up, we generalizing upward to new conclusions, meanings, and get into the connections. higher meanings. When we move down we discover more details.

The Smallest Detail: What are some examples of this? What are some referent experiences? What do you mean specifically? When? Where? Who? In what way?
22

Detail

23

2)

Relationship Sort: Sameness (Matching) Vs. Difference (Mismatching) Sameness or matching seeks to understand how something matches or fits with what one already knows. This may come out of and may lead to the state of wanting things to remain pretty much the same, to keep the status quo, to maintain the routine, to avoid change, etc. Being the same, in common, similar, not changed. Difference or mismatching seeks to understand something in terms of how it differs from what one already knows. This may come from and may lead to the states of wanting change, enjoying it, seeking it, resisting sameness, routine, etc. Different, new, change, switch, transform, unique.

What is the relationship between X and Y? How do you compare X and Y? How do you go about understand something new? Do you look first for similarities and match up the new with what you already know? Or do you first check out the differences? Or do you first do one pattern and then immediately do the other?

Figure 7 Matching Matching Balanced Mismatching Mismatching ____________________________________________________________________ Sameness w/ Exception Equally W/ Exceptions Differences 3) Representational system processing: Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Language This refers to the system of information processing (sensory based or language based) that we prefer, favour, or trust and so makes up our preferred learning system. Visual refers to seeing pictures, entertaining an internal movie, etc. Auditory refers to hearing sounds, tones, volumes, pitches, talking to self, etc. Kinesthetic refers to body sensations, motor responses, and leads to experiential learning, needing to get a feel for something, get ones hands on it, etc. Language (auditory digital) refers to the linguistic and symbolic systems: math, music, abstractions, etc.

Elicitation: When you think about something or learn something new, which sensory channel do you prefer? Which channel do you use most commonly?

24

4 & 5) Information Gathering Sort: Sensor (Uptime) Vs. Intuitor (Downtime) This refers to where we tend to look for the source of the information that we process outside in the external world or internal to our internal processing. Sensors tend to prefer to operate with their see-hear-feel senses and so operate in an Uptime model of sensory awareness. They get information in see-hear-feel ways. This gives them a preference for empirical data, details, etc. Intuitors tend to prefer to operate with their meanings (their beliefs, values, experiences, history, skills, gut feelings, etc.) And so tend to operate from the Downtime state . . . that is, inside in their in-tuiting (in-knowings). This gives them a preference for feelings, guesses, hunches, etc.

When you listen to a speech or conversation, do you tend to hear the specific sensory-based data or do you go inside (downtime) and listen for what the speaker means? Do you want to hear proof and evidence from the outside or do you take more interest in your internal thoughts about it? 6) Perceptual Sort: Black-White / Continuum Some minds operate more skilfully, and/ or have received more training, in discerning broad categories (Black & White Thinking) while others operate with more sophisticated discernment within the grey areas (Continuum) in between polar ends of a continuum. 7) Attribution Sort: Best/ Worst Optimists / Pessimists Best vs. Worst Scenario Thinking: Optimists/ Pessimists Helpless/ Empowered. Concept: Do you look for problems, dangers, difficulties (Worst Case Scenario) or for solutions, opportunities, etc. (Best Case Scenario)? Attribution style: Seligman (1975, 1990): Learned helplessness; learned Figure 8 Worse Case Helpless/ Deterministic Personal Pervasive Permanent Best Case Pessimistic Optimistic Empowered Impersonal Indexed to Where, What Indexed to When optimism

8)

Perceptual Durability Sort: Permeable / Impermeable Concept: whats the quality of your internal constructions? How permanent, solid, real, firm (impermeable), or loose, weak, unreal, and permeable are they? Permeable: difficulty in keeping an idea front & center in the mind. Impermeable: concepts strong and stable.
25

9)

Focus Sort: Screeners / Non-Screeners Concept: stimulus screening refers to how much of the environment we bring in and/or keep out. Non-Screeners: highly distracted by the environment and stimuli around. Less selectivity in focusing, more arousal to distractions. Screeners: more focused, easier time concentrating, less distracted. Can become inattentive, zoned-out.

10)

Philosophical Direction: Why / How; Origins/ Solutions; Philosophical / Practical Concept: relates to how our minds think in terms of philosophy. Do we care more about source, origins, and why? Or, do we care more about solution, process, and how to get on with things? Why Sort for the past, source of things, origins, where it comes from. How? Sort for use, purpose, practical concerns.

11)

Reality Structure Sort: Aristotelian Non-Aristotelian; Static Process Concept: How we think about external reality itself. Aristotelian: Sorts in terms of things being static, permanent, solid at the micro-level. World of objects, things, people. Nouns, Nominalizations, Use of to be verbs, Identifications. Non-Aristotelian: Sorts in terms of process, movement, change, flux, movement, non-things, non-linear reasoning, systems.

12)

Communication Channel Preference: Verbal Non-Verbal; Digital Analogue Concept: We have two primary channels, dimensions, modalities for sending/ receiving information. Verbal & Digital: Sorts for words, language, terms, content of message. Non-verbal & analogue: Sorts for body expressions: breathing, posture, muscle tone, gestures, eye scanning, tone and volume.

26

THE FEELING/ EMOTIONAL META-PROGRAMS 13) Stress Coping Sort: Passive (Flight) Vs. Aggressive (Fight) This MP refers to how ones nervous system at the neurological level moves toward or away from stressors, threats, dangers, and a sense of overload. Some take such on and go at it, others instinctively move away from it. Some have nervous systems that are highly sensitive to danger and others are highly insensitive to such. Passive or the go away Flight response MP refers to moving away from dangers, stressors, threats, etc. Those with this MP tend to use the Type-B stress response. Aggressive or the go at Fight response MP refers to the process of moving toward, and going at, threats, dangers, and stressors. Those who use this MP tend to use the Type-A stress response. Assertive or the mindful response MP refers to the learned response, the TypeC stress response, that arises from training in thinking and talking out stresses and deciding on fight/flight responses as appropriate.

Elicitation: When you feel threatened, or challenged, by some stress... do you immediately respond, on the emotional level, by wanting to get away from it or to go at it?

14)

Referencing Style: Other Referent (External) Vs. Self-Referent (Internal) This MP relates to our sense or locus (location) of control. Where do we posit it? Do we posit it inside or outside of ourselves? Other and/or external Reference MP describes the view, perspective, and orientation of one who looks outward. This MP sorts for and pays attention to the views and opinions of others, to the authorities out there. Self or internal reference MP describes the view that ones own thoughts, values, and choice matters most. This creates the orientation of referencing ultimately from one self although a person may first gather lots of information from others.

Where do you put most of your attention or reference, on yourself or on others (or something external to yourself)? What do you rely on for your authority? 15) Emotional State: Associated Vs. Dissociated This MP refers to our perceptual style. If we take a perceptual position of 2 nd or 3rd rather than 1st we move to a dissociation of the information (and into other information). This shows up emotionally and somatically (in our body) as neutral feelings or dulled feelings. As MP, these relative terms describe our position (mentally and emotionally) to a set of representations, whether we have stepped into or out of a particular state. Associated as a MP refers to viewing and feeling things from first person position, being very much into the thoughts and emotions, and having lots of corresponding somatic and kinesthetic sensations. Dissociated as a MP refers to viewing and feeling the world from second or third person and so feelingly not into the experience, but standing back and watching it as if a spectator.

Think about an event in a work situation that once gave you trouble...
27

What experience surrounding work would you say has given you the most pleasure or delight...? How do you normally feel while at work? When you make a decision, do you rely more on reason and logic or personal values or something else? 16) Somatic Response Style: Active, Inactive, Reactive This MP refers to how we act out our thoughts, emotions, and choices. Inactive MP style refers to a response style that generates little action. We think about things, mediate upon them, delay responding, etc. In the end, we are fairly inactive. Active MP style refers to a response style of quickly or immediately taking action on our thoughts and feelings and doing something. When it is well-tempered, it will generate proactivity, taking initiative, etc. Reactive MP style refers to a response style of unthinking acting, operating from a reactive, even a fight/flight sense of danger or threat.

When you come into a new situation, do you usually act quickly after sizing it up or do you do a detailed study of all the consequences before acting? When you come into a social situation (a group, class, team, family reunion, etc.), do you usually act quickly after sizing it up or do you engage in a detailed study of all of the consequences, and then act? How do you typically respond? 17a) Convincer Sort: VAK & Language This MP refers to the state of feeling convinced about something. What convinces you? How do you make your choices and decisions? Which sensory system do you use? What do you rely upon? Visual convincer: You have to see it, imagine it, view it. You have to see it in colour, close, etc. Seeing convinces. Auditory convincer: You have to hear it, experience the sound qualities of it. Kinesthetic convincer: You have to feel it, get a sense of how it feels, experience it. Word convincer: You have to have the right words that properly describes it, that makes the right and appropriate reasons, arguments, you have to have verbal proof, statistics, etc.

28

17b) Repetition convincer: How many times do you have to be convinced in order for you to access the state of feeling convinced? Once, three, fifteen, never? The never convinced always disbelieve and never are sure. They stay perpetually unconvinced and always entertain doubts. The automatically convinced begin by giving others the benefits of all doubts. They are convinced from the start. They need no convincing. They are ready to believe, The convinced by repetition are most people, they need so many times, from 3 to 7 to 40. Repetition drives the knowledge, convictions, beliefs, values, etc. home. The convinced by a period of time This person needs a specific period of time to be convinced Elicitation: Ask questions that presuppose decision making.

Why did you decide on your present choice of car? What helps you decide where to vacation? As you make a decision about where to vacation, how do you think about such? Do you see, hear, or create feelings about it? What lets you know that you can believe that a product feels right for you? 18) Emotional Direction Sort: Uni-Directional Multi-Directional Concept: Relates to the focus and diffusion of emotions; emotional style in emoting, focus and spread of emotions over experience. Multi-Directional: Experiences emotions as spreading all over and contaminating other facets of life. Uncontained. Uni-Directional: Experiences emotions as staying contextualized to referent object and frames. 19) Emotional Intensity or Exuberance Sort: Desurgency Surgency; Timidity Boldness Concept: How much emotional exuberance or lack there as one emotes, especially in relation to others and to tasks. Surgency: Experiences emotions with lots of intensity, very strongly, feels throughout body. Can lead to hysteria. Supported by frames that value emotions. Desurgency: Experiences low level of emotional intensity; typically does not trust emotions, may not want them. Value certainty, predictability, stability. May have anti-emotion frames.

29

THE CHOOSING/ WILLING META-PROGRAMS 20) Motivation Direction: Away From (Past Assurance/Avoidance) VS. Toward (Future Possibilities /Approach) Our motivational sort describes our orientation in the world in terms of how we take action and make choices of value and importance. Do we move away from dangers or toward possibilities? Away from describes the MP to think first about dangers, threats, apprehensions, etc. This typically leads a person to prefer to first make choices about safety, avoidance of problems, etc. Toward describes the MP to think first about what a person wants, goals, dreams, outcomes, hopes, possibilities, etc. This tends to lead one to develop a moving toward values and objectives orientation in the world.

What do you want from a relationship, or a job, etc.? What will having this do for you? What do you value of importance about...?

21)

Adaptation Style: Procedures Vs. Options This MP relates to our adaptation style in the world, whether we move through it seeking to establish procedures, rules, and organized ways for how to do things, the right way to do things, or for whether we move through the world looking for options, choices, new ways to do things. Etc. Procedure MP refers to seeing the world in terms of specific procedures for how to do things, and so sorts for processes, structures, organization, etc. This leads to such states as caring about finding and using the right way to do something, rules, etc. Options MP refers to seeing the world in terms of options and choices, inventing new ways to try things, exploring alternatives, etc. This leads to such states as trailblazing, inventing, discovering, etc.

Elicitation: Ask why questions. Why did you choose your car? (or job, town, bank, etc.).

22)

Adaptation Sort: Judger (Adaptor) Vs. Perceiver (Floater) This MP refers to how we adapt ourselves as we move through the world. Do we use a style of navigating life by adapting ourselves to it (perceiver) or by working to make the world adapt to us (judger)? Judger or adaptor MP views the world (and so makes choices) by seeking to exercise control or management over the world. This leads to the state of taking charge, acting, innovating, being a mover and shaker, etc. Very characteristic of the Western way of life. Perceiver or Floater MP views the world as whole and something to mostly observe, notice, and experience rather than manage or control. This leads to the states of fitting in, finding the natural rhythms of the world, being passive, enjoy the observation, being a spectator, etc.

Do you like to live life spontaneously as the spirit moves you or according to a plan? Do you find it easy or difficult to make up your mind?
30

If we did a project together, would you prefer we first outline and plan it in an orderly fashion or would you prefer to just begin to move into it and flexibly adjust to things as we go? Do you have a day timer-type of calendar? Do you use it? Do you enjoy using it? 23) Modal Operators: Necessity Vs. Desire; Impossibility Vs. Possibility These terms (in linguistics, modal operators) reflect our MO (or modus operandi) in the world, our style of operating with regard to events, tasks, people, information, etc. Do we have to, must, should, get it, cant, can, etc.? Necessity MO refers to the MP of a world of shoulds, musts, have tos necessities, rules, compulsions, laws, etc. Desire MO refers to the world of wants, desires, hopes, get tos, etc. This invites one to live in a world of desires, dreams, goals, etc. Impossibility MO refers to the MP of viewing the world in terms of cant, impossibilities, it wont work, etc. This invites one to live in a world of limitations, inhibitions, prohibitions, etc. Possibility MO refers to the MP of viewing the world in terms of possibilities, cans, competencies, etc. It invites one into the world of hope and dreams.

Elicitation: How did you motivate yourself to go to work today? What did you say to yourself that helped to get you moving?

24)

Preference Sort: People, Things, Activity, Information, Location This MP refers to what we prefer as most important or significant in our choices. People sort refers to the value and importance we place upon people and people issues: like emotions. Thing sort refers to the value and importance we place upon things, objects, technology, toys, etc. Activity sort refers to the value and importance we place upon activities, tasks, projects, jobs, challenges, etc. Location sort refers to the value and importance we place upon places, surroundings, location, geography, environment, etc. Information sort refers to the value and importance we place upon information, data, researching, learning, reading, talking, seeing, etc. Time sort refers to the value and importance we place upon the time element, when we do things.

What would you find as really important in how you choose to spend your next two week vacation? What kinds of things, people, activities, etc. would you want present for you to evaluate it as really great? Tell me about your favourite restaurant. 25) Goal Striving Sort: Perfectionism Optimization Scepticism Concept: Relates to how we adapt and respond to expectations, goals, outcomes, striving. Perfectionism: Going for flawless perfection, focus on end-product, fearful of what could be wrong, miss the mark, never good enough.
31

Optimizing: Moving forward aiming to enjoy process and achieve aims, but taking numerous constraints into account. Defeatist/ Scepticism: Negatively anchored to concept; refuse to set goals, refuse to compete. 26) Buying Sort: Cost/ Convenience/ Quality/ Time Figure 9 This MP refers to how we think, perceive, pay attention, and sort for when it comes to purchasing and deciding to purchase. People differ in preferring to focus on cost, convenience, quality, and time in different ways. What do you primarily concern yourself with the price, convenience, time, or quality, or some combination of these when you consider making a purchase? Put a mark on the diagram at the place that represents where you feel that you put most of your concern in the double-triangle. This foregrounds awareness the tradeoffs between the values.

32

27)

Responsibility Sort: Under-Responsible Responsible Over-Responsible Concept: A meta MP that addresses concept of personal power/ ability to respond and to be held accountable by others. Under-Responsible: responds with lack of acceptance of owning or wanting responsibility. Blame, entitlement, dependency, victim-hood, irresponsibility. Responsible: Appropriately balancing ownership of responses for self and to others. Over-Responsible: takes on too much ownership, leading to care-taking, intrusion, over-involvement, stress.

28)

People Convincer Sort: Distrusting Trusting; Paranoid Naive Concept: From how we feel convinced in general, this is how we sort for and respond to relating to others. Distrusting Paranoid: Immediately, automatically, and pervasively assume the worst of others, distrust: leads to jealousy, envy, guardedness, defensiveness, shallow relationships. Trusting Naive: Immediately responds to others assuming trust, similarity, connections: leads to openness, warmth, friendliness, outgoing, can lead to being duped easily.

33

THE RESPONDING META-PROGRAMS 29) Rejuvenation of Battery Sort: Extrovert Ambivert Introvert Concept: How we interact with and need or avoid people when we are feeling low or discouraged. Extrovert: perception turns outward to others, desires companionship, encouragement, support. Introvert: perception turns inward to self, wants privacy, time by self, etc. Ambivert: uses both in a more balanced way with a sense of choice. 30) Affiliation/ Management Sort: Individual, Team And Self, Or Team Concept: How do you sort work situations with other people. Individual MP refers to preferring to work alone and assuming sole responsibility for a job or task. People who use this MP work best when in control of the part they contribute to a project. Language: I, on my own, prefer to do it myself. Team and Self MP refers to preferring to work with others and keeping responsibility for a task in ones own hands. Those who use this MP understand working with others in a hierarchy and may at times assume control and subordination to superiors. Language: on my own and with others, team, teamwork. Team MP refers to preferring to work and share responsibilities for an assignment with others and believes in the synergism of people working together. People who use this MP prefer working as a joint effort and participating with others. Management MP refers to those people who find it easy to manage others. Language: I motivate people. I get others to do things. Leadership MP refers to those who see and create new visions and setting new frames. Elicitation: Tell me about one of your favourite working experiences. What did you like about it? When you are at work do you know what to do to succeed at your job or task? Do you know what others need to do to succeed at their task? Can you easily communicate what others need to do to succeed at their task? Do you like doing that? Do you find people respond well to your management and/or leadership style? Do you know what else can be done as new potentials for this work? Are you good at communicating and persuading people to new vision?

31)

Communication Stance: Placator, Blamer, Distractor, Computer, Leveler This MP identifies the five basic communication stances known as the Satir Categories. These are the ways people communicate under stress. Placator refers to the perceptive of desperately wanting to please, and so illustrates a high level Other-Referent. Blamer refers to wanting to take charge by finding and putting blame on someone. A blamer operates as an extreme Self-Referent.
34

Distractor refers to wanting to not be known, to have to take a stance, and so constantly changes position. Computer refers to wanting to operate exclusive from the intellect and to show no emotion, a kind of Mr. Spock response. Leveler refers to wanting to be straightforward and to simply disclose thoughts and emotions in an assertive way. 32) General Response: Congruent/Incongruent/Competitive/Cooperative/Polarity/Meta When we respond to people, things, information, and events we can do so in various ways according to the style and the energy expended: congruently, incongruently, competitively, cooperatively, with polarity, or a meta response. (1) To congruently respond means to feel in accordance with something. (2) Conversely, to respond incongruently involves thinking-and-feeling one way which responding another. (3) A competitive response involves processing an experience, thought, and emotion in terms of comparison and competition: "Who do I evaluate as the best, the first, ahead, etc.?" (4) A cooperative response thinks in terms of assisting and helping other people to share the experience. (5) The Polarity Response jumps from one pole to the other pole on a continuum driven usually by black and white thinking / either-or thinking. (6) The meta-response refers to processing information at a higher logical level by going above the immediate content and having thoughts about it. "I find it interesting to realize that the images of that calm scene look fuzzy, and not quite clear. If we make the pictures with a sharper and more focused image that would make for less serenity." Elicitation: When you come into a situation, how do you usually respond? Do you respond 1) with a sense of feeling and acting congruent and harmonious with your thoughts-and-feelings or, do you respond with a sense of not feeling or acting congruent and harmonious with your thoughts and feelings? 2) Do you respond with a sense of cooperation with the subject matter, or a feeling of disagreement? 3) Or, do you prefer to go above the immediate context and have thoughts about the situation? 33) Somatic Response: Active/ Reflective / Both / Inactive Concept: Some people process information in a very active, quick, immediate, and impulsive way the active style. Others engage in the handling of information much more reflectively, thoughtfully, slowly, etc. the reflective style. Others do not seem to engage in information processing much at all, or at least with much reluctance the inactive style. Elicitation:

When you come into a new situation, do you usually act quickly after sizing it up or do you do a detailed study of all the consequences before acting?
35

34)

When you come into a social situation (a group, class, team, family reunion, etc.), do you usually act quickly after sizing it up or do you engage in a detailed study of all of the consequences, and then act? How do you typically respond? Work Preference: Things/ Systems/ People / Information Concept: When we engage in the significant activity of work, career, vocation, etc., we operate with preferences about what to work with: things, systems, people, and information (This Meta-Programs relates closely to the Affiliation Filter, #30) Elicitation: Tell me about one of your favourite working experiences. What did you like about it?

35)

Comparison Sort: Quantitative Qualitative Concept: Related to how we filter as we compare things. Quantitative: perceive things through quanta: numbers, ranks, orders, measurements, standards. Qualitative: perceive things through quality: quality of an experience, person, or event.

36)

Knowledge Source Sort: Experiencing, Authorizing

Modelling,

Conceptualizing,

Demonstrating,

Concept: filtering for the source/s that we consider as valid. Elicitation: What source of knowledge do you consider authoritative and most reliable? From where would you gather reliable information that you can trust? When you decide that you will do something, where do you get the information to do it from? 37) Completion or Closure Sort: Closure Non-Closure Concept: Sorting for the fullness or lack thereof of information. Closure: sorts for completeness, fullness of information, closure, story finished, loop ended. How long can you tolerate ambiguity? Non-Closure: doesnt make this sort, nice, but not necessary. Rests easily with ambiguity, confusion, open-ended processes.

36

38)

Social Presentation: Shrewd and Artful Genuine and Artless Concept: relates to how we focus when relating to and interacting with others in a social context. Shrewd & Artful: filters for the social impression that we make, our presentation to others, carefully manages impression, fearful of negative impressions and judgments. Genuine & Artless: Filters for being real, not being a fake, being ones own person, saying and thinking what one truly does, disvalues judgments of others.

39)

Hierarchical Dominance Sort: Power Affiliation Achievement Concept: Developed by David McClelland about human interacting in work contexts and structures. Power: sorts for the power of choosing, having control, competing, dominating; politically minded; win/lose mentality common. Affiliation: sorts for connection, relationship, courtesy, getting along, win/win or even lose/win. Fears conflict and criticism. Achievement: sorts for accomplishing things, getting things done, end products. Elicitation: "Evaluate your motives in interacting with others in terms of your motivational preferences between Power (dominance, competition, politics), Affiliation (relationship, courtesy, cooperation) and Achievement (results, goals, objectives) and using 100 points as your scale, distribute those hundred points among these three styles of handling "power." __ Power (dominance, competition, politics) __ Affiliation (relationship, courtesy, cooperation) __ Achievement (results, goals, objectives)

37

THE CONCEPTUALIZING META-PROGRAMS 40) Value Sort: List of Values Our values (a nominalization for valuing) arise from, and take form, from our thoughts, ideas, and understandings about what we deem as important (e.g. significant and meaningful). By means of our valuation thoughts we appraise various things, people, experiences, qualities, ideas, etc. with respect to importance in living life according to our map about life as we should live it. This makes our socalled Values MP at the same time perceptual sorts for how we pay attention to things and perceive things. Values describes abstractions of importance (a meta-level) wherein we appraise value, importance, and significance about other things. What we appraise as a value, we believe in. We believe in the importance and significance of the value, so we trust and act upon it. Structurally, a value contains a two-level phenomenon. To the primary level thought we first have it in some MP format (global/ specific, VAK, match/ mismatch, etc.). Then to the Meta-Programs format we have a thought of importance and significance about it. Every MP we use habitually, we value. Anticipate discovering that they actually have many reasons and motivations for engaging in such thinking! Our values arise, in part, from our Meta-Programs themselves, especially our driver MetaPrograms. Figure 10

38

Elicitation: As you inquire about anything, ask what the person thinks valuable, important, or significant about that thing whether a job, relationship, idea, etc. Self Meta-Programs: Sense of Self in various dimensions Concept: our sense of self has many facets and domains of experiences. Temper to Instruction: Strong-will compliant Self-Esteem: High or Low Esteeming; Conditional or Unconditional Self-Confidence: High or low faith in skills, abilities Self-Experience: Area & degree of Identification: Mind, Emotion, Will, Role, Position, A-identification Self-Integrity: Conflicted Incongruity/ Integrated Harmony 41) Temper to Instruction Sort: Compliant Vs. Self-Willing This MP refers to our relationship with choice, instruction, command, authority, power, control, etc. Some people comply and others resist these experiences and so develop different MP. Compliance MP refers to those who take orders well, who comply with instructions, who take information, demands, etc. well. They may do so in an unhealthy way (fear of taking personal responsibility, cowering before everybody else), or they may do so in a healthy way: recognition of authority structures and willingness to receive instruction. Strong-Willed MP refers to those who either so define themselves in terms of their will and freedom of choice or those traumatized by obnoxious authority figures that they have set a frame for perceiving any instruction (even their own) as a violation of their freedom of will.

Can someone tell you something? How do you think and feel when you receive instructions? How well can you tell yourself to do something and carry it out without a lot of internal resistance?

42)

Self-Esteem Sort: Conditional vs. Unconditional Self-Esteem This MP refers to the higher level belief frames we operate from with regard to our conceptual understandings about the value and dignity of a self, what we believe about human beings. Conditional Self-Esteem MP refers to viewing and feeling self-esteem as conditional and based upon any number of things as determined in a persons culture, belief-systems, etc.: looks, money, strength, intelligence, degrees, status, etc. People who prefer and use this MP are forever thinking, feeling, and concerned about how they are doing on the self-esteem scale, their ego concerns are always on the line. Unconditional Self-Esteem MP refers to viewing and feeling self-esteem as unconditionally given and therefore full, complete, and unassailable. People who prefer and use this MP operate with little ego concerns since they are cantered.

Do you think of your value as a person as conditional or unconditional? When you esteem yourself as valuable, worthwhile, having dignity, etc. do you base it upon something you do, have, or possess, or do
39

you base it upon a given (i.e. your inherent humanity, made in Gods image and likeness, etc.)? 43) Self-Confidence Sort: Low VS. High Self-Confidence This MP refers to ones feelings of confidence, trust, or faith in their skills and abilities. It refers to how much faith in particular skills in a given context that a person operates from. It can also refer to a generalized sense of confidence in self to learn, develop, grow, get it, etc. Low Self-Confidence MP describes those who lack confidence to do a particular thing, and those who distrust their ability to learn. High Self-Confidence MP describes those who have confidence in a particular activity, and it can refer to those who generally trust that they can learn and develop new skills.

As you think about some of the things that you can do well, and that you know, without a doubt, you can do well and may even take pride in your ability to do them skilfully, make a list of those items. How confident do you feel about your skills in doing these things? How have you generalized from these specific self-confidences to your overall sense of self-confidence? 44) Self-Experience Sort: Self-Definitions using Mind, body, Emotions, Will, Roles, etc. This MP refers to the beliefs and understandings that we use and operate from in defining ourselves, and so in how we experience ourselves. We can base our selfdefinitions on a wide variety of things: Thought Emotion Choice

Body Status Roles Degrees Experiences Etc.

As you think about your thoughts, emotions, will, body, roles, and positions that you experience in life which facet or facets of yourself seems the most important, real, or valid? Do you think of yourself primarily as a thinker, emotional person, chooser, in terms of your physical looks or body, in terms of your roles and positions, or what?

40

45)

Self-Integrity: Conflicted Incongruity Harmonious Integration Concept: The Meta-Programs relates to how well does you live up to your values, rules, beliefs, etc.? It relates to the degree of your personal integrity. How do you live up to your ideals? Elicitation: When you think about how well or how poorly you live up to your ideals and in actualizing your ideal self, do you feel integrated, congruous, doing a good job in living true to your values and visions, or do you feel torn, conflicted, unintegrated, incongruous?

46)

Time Processing: Past, Present, Future Our processing of time in terms of the time zones of awareness refers to which time zone we prefer to sort for, pay attention to, and use in our calculating of things. Past time processing refers to the preference to use the past, past events, past learnings, etc. This can lead to living in the past, to wanting the security of past references, etc. Present time processing refers to the preference to using the present, the now, and to valuing current experiences, feelings, etc. Future time processing refers to the preference for using future possibilities as ones point of reference. This can lead to visionary thinking, possibilities, dreaming, or fearfully worrying about dangers and terrible things that might happen. Where do you put most of your attention on the past, present, or future? Or, have you developed an atemporal attitude so that you dont attend to time at all?

47)

Time Experience: In-Time Vs. Through-Time This MP has reference to how we code and process our Time-Lines. As a MP about the concept of time it relates to whether we live in it or out of it, associatedly or dissociatedly. In-Time MP refers to processing time in such a way that the line goes through us (through our body) so that we live and perceive inside of time so to speak. This generates an experience of living in the eternal now, and easily getting lost in time. We live in a primary state of time and have little awareness of time as such. This makes us spontaneous, systemic, and random in our orientations and behaviours. Through-Time MP refers to processing time from a higher or meta level, and so being out of time in such a way that our line occurs outside of us. It does not go through our body. This gives us more perception and awareness of time and makes us more sequential, linear, and on time. etc.

Use the traditional NLP time-line elicitation question to identify a persons style of processing this concept of time. As you take a moment to relax, and to feel inwardly calm, allow yourself to recall a memory of something that occurred sometime in your past... And something else from long ago... Now think of some event that occurred today... and another... Now think of an event that will occur, one of these days... and another future event... 48) Time Access sort: Sequential Random
41

Concept: This Meta-Programs relates to how we access our memories of the past and functions as a sub-category of how we store or code time itself. Two overall patterns prevail: those who use a random accessing style and those who use a sequential accessing style. Elicitation: Use the time accessing questions as in #47. 49) Ego- Strength: Unstable Stable; Reactive Proactive How well we face the world, reality, facts, degree of adjustment. Concept: This meta-frame relates to how well we face the world, reality, facts with mind; degree of adjustment. Ego refers to our cognitive and perceptual mind in facing what exists. Elicitation: When you think about some difficulty arising in everyday life, a disappointment, problem, frustration that will block your progress, etc., what usually comes to your mind? How do you feel about such events? How do you typically respond to internal needs or external hardships? Where do your mind-andemotions go when you face a problem? 50) Morality Sort: Weak Super-ego Strong Super ego Relation to conscience, following moral and ethical principles. Elicitation: When you think about some misbehaviour that you engaged in, what thoughts-and-feelings arise when you realized that you had acted in an inappropriate way that violated legitimate values? When you think about messing up, doing something embarrassing, stupid, socially inept, etc., what thoughts-andfeelings flood your consciousness along with that realization? The Unconscientious Sort. Those who have a weakly developed super-ego tend to not recognize or sort for true guilt--the violation of a true moral standard. So they disregard obligations, rules, ethics, morals, etc. They live self-indulgently. The Conscientious Sort. Those who have a well-developed super-ego sort for the rightness or wrongness of events, especially those that truly fulfill or violate genuine moral standards. This internalized moral consciousness makes them responsible (#27), personally disciplined, having a strong sense of duty, staid to immediate pleasures to do wrong, moralistic, etc.

42

51)

Causation Sort: Concept: This one relates to how we sort for cause. What makes things happen? Does inexplicable magic, direct linear cause-effect as in mathematics and physics? Does a whole range of contributing factors? Or, does nothing actually cause other things, at best, effects only exist in a correlational relationship to other events? Causeless: no causes, all is by chance, random. Linear Cause-Effect: Simplistic Stimulus-Response world Multi- Cause-Effect: Many contributing influences, systemic Personal CE: I cause whatever happens, at cause for everything External CE: I cause nothing, it all comes from without, blame! Magical CE: Superstitious beliefs about entities & forces in the universe causing things Correlational: Recognizing things can happen simultaneous without a causational relationship

43

CHANGING META-PROGRAMS Robbins (1986) says that one way to change a MP involves consciously deciding to do so. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Become aware of the Meta-Programs Identify Contexts & check the Ecology and Value of that MP in those contexts Give permission to try it on for a day Shift consciousness to the other side of the continuum and try on the other MP Set multiple frames that will support using the Preferred MP

Meta-Programs inform our brain regarding what to delete If we move toward values, we delete awareness about what we move Away From. If we sort for the Details, we delete the Big Picture. Re-Direct awareness to what you normally delete, value that information, practice looking for it. CHANGING META-PROGRAMS 1) Identify & Ecology Check the MP. Specifically identify when, where and how you use this MP that does not serve you well and how it undermines your effectiveness in some way. 2) Describe the Preferred MP. What meta-level processing would you prefer to run your perceiving and valuing? Specify when, where, and how you want this MP to govern your consciousness. 3) Try it out. Imaginatively adopt the new MP, pretend to use it in sorting, perceiving, attending, etc. Notice how it seems, feels, works, etc. in some contexts where you think it would serve you better. Even if it seems a little weird and strange due to your unfamiliarity with looking at the world with that particular perceptual filter, notice what other feelings, beside discomfort, may arise with it. 4) Model it. If you know someone who uses this MP, explore with them their experience until you can fully step into their position. When you can, then step into 2nd perception so that you can see the world out of that persons Meta-Programs eyes, hearing what he or she hears, self-talking as he or she engages in self-dialogue, and feeling what that person feels. 4) Ecology check it. Go meta to an even higher level and consider what this MP will do to you and for you in terms of perception, valuing, believing, behaving, etc. What kind of a person would it begin to make you? What effect would it have on various aspects of your life? 5) Give yourself permission to install it for a period of time. Grant yourself permission to use it for a time. Check for objections. Future pace. If you have typically operated using the Other-Referencing Meta-Programs (#14) and you give yourself permission to shift to Self-Referencing, yet when you do, you
44

hear an internal voice that sounds like your mothers voice in tone and tempo, Its selfish to think about yourself. Dont be so selfish, you will lose all of your friends. This voice objects on two accounts: selfishness and disapproval that leads to loneliness. So rephrase your permission to take these objections into account. I give myself permission to see the world referencing centrally from myself my values, beliefs, wants, etc., knowing that my values including loving, caring, and respecting others will keep me balanced by considering the effect of my choices on others. 6) Future pace the MP Practice, in your imagination, using the MP and do so until it begins to feel comfortable and familiar. If you knew when you originally made the choice to operate from the Other Referent (name the Meta-Programs you want to change), would that have been before, after, or during birth? Use one of the time-line processes to neutralize the old emotions, thoughts, beliefs, decisions, etc. The visual-kinesthetic dissociation technique, decision destroyer pattern, etc. Once you have cleared out the old pattern, you can install the new Meta-Programs. Changing Meta-Programs In and With Time MP refer to our strategies for filtering the information our strategies for seeing. Therefore it makes sense to update any strategy thats sluggish, inappropriate, maladjusted. Time affects our MP, but why? How does time have such an affect on our MetaPrograms? As events come and go over a period of months or years, these ever-changing events create new learning contexts contexts within which we learn to pay attention, sort for, and perceive in different ways. So when we do pseudo-time orientation using various time-line patterns, we use a meta-level structure that alters our thinking contexts. Additionally, we use an inherently hypnotic process when we go inside and access our time-line and then float above it back to our past. This enables us to access a highly receptive and suggestible state which, in turn, amplifies our responsiveness to the change patterns.

45

THE EFFECT OF META-PROGRAMS ON SUBMODALITIES If Meta-Programs and Submodalities are two meta-level Models that we use in NLP for finding and working with the Structure of Experience... and if many of the distinctions in each Model overlap or are the same distinction, then we should be able to translate between MP and SBMD. 1) Think of one of your Top 10 NLP Resource States. Elicit a time and place where you were fully in that state... Recall it. Is it a Snapshot or a Movie? Turn into a Movie. Fully Notice your representations as you refresh this state and the driving Representations. 2) Check the Meta-Programs of your Resource State Use the MP List (Appendix A) and check for the structuring of your Representations in terms of the thinking patterns (MP). Shift back and forth between the Meta-Programs noticing how it affects your SBMD. 3) Solidify your Learnings As you find more resourceful and empowering ways to structure your Representations for the Resource State... Shift to those. Check the Ecology as you future pace Solidify through validating beliefs, values, identities, decisions.

46

PRACTICE EXERCISES FOR TRAINING YOUR INTUITIONS TO RECOGNIZE META-PROGRAMS Learning To Detect Patterns of Perception If Meta-Programs typically and mostly operate outside of our conscious awareness, how do we bring these programs into awareness? How can we become more aware of them? How can we learn to see the effect they have on the way we process information and interact with others? Your Self-Preparation: 1) Tune up your reasons for paying attention. If you had a way to detect, sort out, and pay attention to these meta-level patterns. ... If you could consciously detect and track how any given person attends the world, you would have a way to more effectively understand and even predict that persons style of hearing and responding to things. This would give you an awareness of that persons model of reality. 2) Access your best NLP State ... of Sensory Awareness Access your Uptime state. 3) Access your best NLP state of Flexibility Knowing anothers model of the world and having the flexibility to alter your own behaviours and communication empowers you to meet that person where they are. This way of connecting and matching creates rapport which reduces resistance, conflict, and misunderstandings. What to do as a Practitioner: 1) Assist the person into a more fully associated state. The more one is in an experience, the cleaner the information well gather. Amplify that state when necessary and appropriate. 2) Switch references. Use the Temporary Employment Frame: If I were you for a day how would I have to do that? Teach me how to do that. 3) Anchor the experience. Do it without using the Kinesthetic system. 4) Slow the experience down and keep recycling. Most subjective experiences go by too fast to catch all of the embedded patterns within it the first time. We see and hear much more when we see a fast paced movie the second and third times. Recycling through the experience with the person to gather more information. 5) Invite the person to step into and out of the experience. Watch the difference between associated & dissociated experiences.

47

Developing Mastery with Meta-Programs

1) Take each MP, one at a time, and practice each one until you develop proficiency in recognizing and using it in speaking. Refuse to overwhelm yourself with them. 2) Give yourself permission to hear Structure and move out of Content. Go meta to listen for processing patterns. Does this make you self conscious? 3) Use open ended questions to elicit Meta-Programs. Would you tell me about one of your favourite holiday experiences? What do you think about developing more effectiveness in communication skills? 4) Some closed-ended question will work. Do you see this glass as half empty or half full? This can work well. 5) Use downtime questions to elicit Meta-Programs. A downtime question is any question that requires a person to go inside to access the information which they need in order to respond. If they dont have the information on the tip of the tongue, they will typically begin to also demonstrate their Meta-Programs. And they act it out in various ways. So to elicit Meta-Programs simply ask a person to fully and completely recall something and have them then step into that experience and feel it fully as if there. 6) Remember, not all MP carry the same or equal weight of importance. They differ according to how a person uses and values them in a given task or area. Identify context, and then prioritize them in terms of importance to that person. Which MP is most important and impactful for this person? What MP exercises the most significance in this persons experiencing? 7) Use the Sorting Grid to track the MP. This will help you organize them in your own thinking and memory. Use it as a tool for profiling yourself first, then those you know well. 8) Practice Writing Pacing Statements. Use the information as soon as you can. Practice writing matching statements. This will greatly increase your communication skills. If a person operates as a strong Self sorter (Self Referencing) who mismatches with counter examples (or with polarity responses), he will tend to feel inclined to challenge people with Prove it to me! statements. This can spiral into a pointless matching of wits if you dont watch out. Yet knowing this, we can now counter this internal formatting with a pacing statement like: You seem so good at knowing your needs that only you can truly decide what you deem as ultimately right. No question about that. And I dont know if what I have to say will make any difference anyway. But anyway here it is.

48

Exercises
#1 Eliciting a Positive Experience 1) Elicit a Positive Experience from Experiencer. 2) Groups of 3 invite Experiencer to talk about a positive event... tell about the experience when the person felt enthused, successful, brilliant, creative, decisive, a winner, etc.). Make sure the experience is a positive one. 3) Practitioners coach the Experiencer in order to elicit more and more of the experience with questions. 4) After 5 minutes, have Practitioners present the Experiencer a summary of their reading of his or her Meta-Programs. Check with A to determine the accuracy. #2. The Sales Encounter 1) Groups of 4. Person who begins, identify something that he or she would never, but never buy. 2) Person B will then attempt to sell that very item to Person A. As B attempts this sell the first Person should essentially consistently respond with a gentle refusal, just saying No, Not interested. 3) Person B should forge ahead regardless of As verbal and non verbal resistance. 4) During this, the two Meta-Persons will be writing down all of the Meta-Programs they can detect in both persons. Pay special attention in detecting the linguistic markers within the language patterns of the persons. #3. The Ideal Evening Game (or, The Dating Game) 1) When you are the Coach (or the Practitioner), ask open ended questions of your partner (the Experiencer) which essentially inquire about what makes for a great night out. What would you want to know about a person before you ask him or her out? What would you need to know to have an evening out with a good friend? What would you evaluate as a delightful evening out with someone? 2) Create a list of all Meta-Programs that you detect in the other persons responses. #4. Asking for Favour 1) Set a frame or context so that the Practitioner will aim to persuade the Experiencer to do him/her a favour. Ask an employee to do something... part of job or something extra. Ask someone that you are in business with for a favour. 2) The Practitioner (or Coach) begins by asking ten questions of the Experiencer to identify his or her basic Meta-Programs. Ask general, conversational questions to gather this information. 3) After gathering MP information, Practitioner will then frame his request (evoking his desired outcome) in words that will reflect the Experiencers most compelling Meta-Programs. 4) Feedback for refining.
49

Afterwards, invite the Experiencer to gauge the effectiveness of the request and to offer feedback about how it could be made even more personally compelling for him or her. #5. Asking For A Personal Favour 1) Set a frame or context for a Role Playing Situation in which one Person (the Coach) will persuade another Person (the Experiencer) to do a favour. I want you to go to the store for me to buy some milk. I want you to come over and watch my kids. I need $10. 2) As the Coaching Person persuades the Experiencer, that person will remain unpersuaded and just say no. 3) The Meta Person will detect the Meta-Programs of the two players in the role playing situation. 4) At the completion, use the information gathered about each others MP to frame the request so that its more influential. #6. The Experience of Liking 1) Practitioner will elicit from the Experiencer a time when he or she liked someone upon first meeting that person. How did you decide that you liked that person? 2) Use the Meta-Programs sorting list; elicit as much information as possible about the Experiencer. 3) Repeat, doing the same for when the Experiencer disliked another person (a stranger, or now friend) upon first meeting him. How did you decide that you disliked that person? 4) Meta Person will then feed back to Practitioner what he or she saw and heard and how the Experiencer responded in terms of Meta-Programs. Meta Person will also feed back to the Practitioner about how B displayed his or her own Meta-Programs in the process. #7. Identifying Someones Agreement/Disagreement Signs 1) Groups of 3. Begin a discussion about something of interest with the Experiencer. 2) The 2 Coaches will watch for the Experiencers autonomic nervous system signals of indicating Yes / No and Agree / Disagree. Elicit yes and no responses while calibrating to the subtle cues that indicate it even when they have no verbalization. 3) When as Coaches you feel that you have become calibrated to the Experiencer, ask that person to not respond verbally or demonstrate his or her thoughtsfeelings in any obvious way. Now verbally pace for 2 minutes to maintain rapport; then for 1 minute totally break rapport to get disagreement, and then for 2 minutes re-establish rapport.

50

IDENTIFYING VALUES What we believe in as important, we value. We then speak about these as our Values (nominalization). Values are not things, but processes of evaluation, the standards we use to evaluate things, to make decisions about the importance of events, ideas, people, etc. Our values and criteria provide an organizing structure to our lives as well as a motivating force. As we add more and more values and criteria, the values themselves can begin to conflict with each other putting us at odds with ourselves. We can over or under value some things. When this happens, internal conflict can also occur so that we get out-ofbalance. The shift of values usually involves an analogue shift adjusting the relative importance of the criteria instead of accepting or rejecting them wholesale. This technology becomes useful when we feel indecisive, cant make up our mind, experience lots of confusion, ambivalence, and inner conflict. We can also use it for resolving interpersonal difficulties, improving our decision making strategies, and before doing agreement frames. Source. Andreas and Andreas (1987). The Pattern 1) Identify an area. Think of one realm of life where values seem confusing (relationships, work, etc). 2) Elicit a hierarchy of criteria. Think of something trivial that you could do, but you wouldnt (i.e. stand on a chair, throw a piece of chalk across the room). Doing the dishes. What do you accomplish by not doing this? I save time. (Always get the criteria stated in the positive what the person wants.) What would get you to do this even though it would violate that criterion? (i.e. saving time, though a waste of time). If someone came for a visit. So what do you find important about that? (As they keep adding more context, find out what the person values in that.) Figure 10 Behaviour (-) Could do dishes, but wont (+) Would do dishes (-) Wouldnt do dishes (+) Would do dishes (-) Wouldnt do dishes Context Few dirty dishes & visiting stranger & cooking a meal & unhygienic dishes & Crisis in building Criterion Save time Neutral impression Excellence (of cooking) Hygiene Safety of persons

Continue this process of doing or not doing the particular behaviours by adding more and more context that gets a person to do the behaviour or disengage from it with each step identifying the criterion it exemplifies. What stands important enough to get you to violate the previous criterion? Doing this will elicit an outcome chain. When would you do the first criteria (A), inquire, What stops you? This will elicit some reverse or negative criteria (B). Then recycle, When would you do A even though it causes B? This brings in the next higher level criterion (C). Negative examples in this process elicit more highly valued criteria. When would you not do A even though it results in B or C?
51

3) Identify the highest criterion and construct a hierarchy. Continue until you have the most important criterion. Make a continuum from the least to the most important criterion. 4) Identify submodalities. Find the submodality differences between the least and the most important criteria. How do you represent saving time, excellence, safety of others, etc.? Elicit see, hear, feel descriptions and especially the analogue submodalities that vary. 5) Put your criteria on a continuum. Determine how much you want to reduce a particular criterion, where you want it to be on the scale. Then shift the submodalities of that criterion so that it matches the submodalities of those at that lower place. Adjust the submodalities so that the criterion becomes coded for the degree of importance you want it to have. 6) Ecology check. Take a meta-position and evaluate your hierarchy of values. Do they serve you well? Do they fall into an order that enables you to make good decisions, to create inner harmony? Any problems or mis-alignments? Identify the criterion you would like to change. 7) Shift criterion. Identify the criterion to be shifted and determine where you want it to end up. What order of values will get you where you want to go? 8) Change submodalities. Slowly change the criterion to the appropriate place on your continuum. Give it the submodalities according to the importance you wish it to have. Notice the submodalities of the criterion before and after it. Code it appropriately. 9) Test. How does your value hierarchy look to you now? Will it help guide you into right behaviours and decisions? 10) Future pace. - Think of a situation where the new criterion will make a difference to you and put yourself into that context and notice your experience.

52

Appendix A Meta-Programs in Five Categories & the Higher Semantic Meta-Programs Processing Cognitive/Perceptual #1 Chunk Size General/Specific Detail/Global #2 Relationship Matching/Mismatching Same/ Difference #3 Representation System VAKO Ad Feeling Emotional/Somatic #13 Emotional Coping Passivity/Aggression /Dissociated #14 Frame of Reference Internal/ External Self-Referent/ OtherReferent #15 Emotional State Associated/ Dissociated Feeling / Thinking Choosing Conative/Willing #20 Motivation Direction Toward/ Away From Approach/ Avoidance #21 Conation Adaptation Options/ Procedures #22 Adaptation Judging/ Perceiving Controlling/Floating #23 Modal Operators Necessity/ Possibility/ Desire #24 Preference People/ Place/ Things

#4 Information Gathering Style Uptime/Downtime #16 Somatic Responses Active/ Reflective/ Inactive #5 Epistemology Sort Stick / Carrot Sensors/Intuitors #6 Perceptual Category Black-White/ Continuum #7 Scenario Thinking Best/Worst Optimists/ Pessimists #8 Durability Permeable/Impermeable #9 Focus Quality Screeners/Non-Screeners #10 Philosophical Direction Why/ How Origins /Solutions #11 Reality Structure Sort Aristotelian/ Non-Aristotelian (Static / Process) #12 Communication Channel Verbal- Digital/ Non-Verbal- Analogue/ Balanced

#25 Adapting to #17 Convincer/Believability Expectations Looks, Sounds, Feels Right Perfection/ Makes Sense Optimizing/ Skepticism #18 Emotional Direction Uni-directional/ #26 Value Buying Multi-directional Cost/Convenience/ #19 Emotional Exuberance Quality/ Time Desurgency/ Surgency #27 Responsibility Over-Responsible/ Under-Responsible Balanced #28 People Convincer Sort Distrusting/ Trusting

Responding Outputting- Behaving #29 Battery Rejuvenation Extrovert/ Ambivert/ Introvert #30. Affiliation/Management

Conceptualizing/ Semanticizing Kantian Categories #40 Values List of Values #41 Temper to Instruction Strong-Will/ Compliant
53

Independent/Team Player/ Manager #31 Communication Stance Blamer/ Placater/ Distracter/ Computer/ Leveler #32 General Response Congruent/ Incongruent Competitive/ Cooperative; Polarity/ Meta #33 Somatic Response Active/ Reflective/ Both/ Inactive #34 Work Preference Things/ Systems/ People/ Information #35 Comparison Quantitative/ Qualitative #36 Knowledge Source Modeling/ Conceptualizing Experiencing/ Authorizing #37 Completion/ Closure Closure/ Non-Closure #38 Social Presentation Shrewd-Artful/ Genuine-Artless #39 Hierarchical Dominance Sort Power/ Affiliation/ Achievement

#42 Self-Esteem High SE/ Low SE #43 Self-Confidence Specific Skills Low / High Self-Confidence #44 Self-Experience Body/ Mind/ Emotions/ Roles/ Choices #45 Self-Integrity Conflicted Incongruity/ Integrated Harmony #46 Time Tenses Past/ Present/ Future #47 Time Experience In Time/ Through Time #48 Time Access Sequential/ Random #49 Ego Strength Stable / Unstable #50. Morality Strong/ Weak Superego #51 Causational Sort Causeless/ Linear CE/ MultiCE/ Personal CE/ External

54

55

Appendix B Meta-Programs Template The Mental Meta-Programs #1. Chunk Size: General/ Specific; Global/ Detail; Deductive, Inductive, Abductive #2. Relationship Sort: Matching/Mismatching; Sameness or Difference/Opposite; Agree/Disagree #3. Representational System Sort: Visual/ Auditory/ Kinesthetic/ Auditory-digital #4. Information Gathering Style: Uptime / Downtime #5. Epistemology Sort: Sensors/ Intuitors #6. Perceptual Categories Sort: Black and white vs. Continuum #7. Scenario Thinking Style: Best vs. Worst Scenario Thinking; Optimists/ Pessimists #8. Perceptual Durability Sort: Permeable/Impermeable #9. Focus Sort: Screeners/ Non-screeners #10. Philosophical Direction: Why/ How; Origins/ Solution Process #11. Reality Structure Sort: Aristotelian/ Non-Aristotelian (Static / Process) #12. Communication Channel Preference: Verbal(Digital)/ Non-Verbal(Analogue), Balanced The Emotional Meta-Programs #13. Emotional Coping or Stress Response Pattern: Passivity / Aggression / Dissociated #14. Frame of Reference or Authority Sort: Internal/ External; Self Referent/ Other Referent #15. Emotional State Sort: Associated/ Dissociated; Feeling/ Thinking #16. Somatic Response Sort: Active/ Reflective/ Inactive #17a. The Convincer Or Believability Sort: Looks, Sounds, or Feels Right; Makes Sense
56

17b. Convincer by Repetition Never/Automatically/by Repetition (number of times) #18. Emotional Direction Sort: Uni-directional/ Multi-directional #19. Emotional Intensity/ Exuberance Sort: Desurgency/ Surgency The Volitional Meta-Programs #20. Direction Sort: Toward/ Away From, Past Assurance/ Future Possibilities; Approach / Avoidance #21. Conation Choice in Adapting: Options/ Procedures #22. Adaptation Sort: Judging / Perceiving, Controlling/Floating #23. Reason Sort of Modal Operators: Necessity/ Possibility/ Desire; Stick- Carrot #24. Preference Sort: Primary Interest: People/ Place/ Things/ Activity/ Information #25. Goal Sort--Adapting to Expectations: Perfection/ Optimization/ Skepticism #26. Value Buying Sort: Cost/ Convenience/ Quality/ Time #27. Responsibility Sort: Over-Responsible/ Under-Responsible #28. People Convincer Sort: Distrusting / Trusting Communication Meta-Programs #29. Rejuvenation of Battery Sort: Extrovert, Ambivert, Introvert #30. Affiliation & Management Sort: Independent/ Team Player/ Manager #31. Communication Stance Sort or Modes: Blamer/Placator/Comupter/ Distractor/ Leveler #32. General Response: Congruent/ Incongruent/ Competitive/ Cooperative/ Polarity/ Meta #33 Somatic Response Style: Active/ Reflective/ Both/ Inactive #34. Work Preference Sort: Things / Systems / People/ Information #35. Comparison Sort: Quantitative / Qualitative
57

#36. Knowledge Sort: Modeling/ Conceptualizing/ Demonstrating/ Experiencing/ Authorizing #37. Completion/ Closure Sort: Closure / Non-Closure #38. Social Presentation: Shrewd & Artful/ Genuine & Artless #39. Hierarchical Dominance Sort: Power/ Affiliation/ Achievement

Meta Meta-Programs #40. Value Sort: Emotional Needs, Beliefs #41. Temper to Instruction Sort: Strong Will / Compliant #42. Self-Esteem Sort: Conditional/ Unconditional #43. Self-Confidence Sort: High / Low #44. Self-Experience Sort: Mind/Emotion/Body/Role #45. Self-Integrity: Conflicted Incongruity / Harmonious Integration #46. Time Tenses Sort: Past/ Present/ Future #47. Time Experience: In Time/ Through Time; Sequential Versus Random Sorting #48. Time Access Sort: Random / Sequential #49. Ego Strength Sort: Unstable/ Stable #50. Morality Sort: Weak/ Strong Super-ego #51. Causational Sort: Causeless, Linear CE, Multi-CE,
58

Personal CS, External CE, Magical, Correlation

59

Appendix C

Summary of Meta-Programs Definitions and Elicitation Questions

The Mental Meta-Programs:
1.

Chunk Size/Reasoning Sort: The preferred size of information that people typically use when thinking, communicating, learning, etc. When coming to a new project do you first look for and zoom out to the big picture (Global) or do you zoom in to look at the details (Detail)? Relationship Sort: The preferred way to with work with and compare data. Do you look for how data is similar (Sameness) to what you already know or how it differs (Difference)? Representational Sort: The preferred way we re-present external data on the screen of our mind. When you think about something or learn something new, do you prefer to process it with pictures (Visual), how it sounds (Auditory), how it feels (Kinesthetic) or do you prefer to talk and say words (Auditory Digital) about it? Information Gathering Style Sort: The preferred way and source for processing data from either external or internal sources. In processing external data, do you prefer to pay attention to the specific sensory data (external pictures, sounds, feelings - Uptime) or do you prefer to pay attention to what is going on inside your thought processes (Downtime)? Epistemology Sort: The preferred way of gathering information from things (similar to #4). Do you prefer to gather information from your five senses (Sensor) or do you prefer to go inside and gather information from your intuition (Intuitor)? Perceptual Categories Sort: The preferred way in discerning between broad categories. Do you prefer to make clear and definite distinctions, in terms of the broad categories at each polar end of a continuum (Black and White) or do you prefer to discern in a more sophisticated way the gray areas in-between (Continuum)? Attribution Style Sort: The preferred way at looking at problems, difficulties, challenges, etc. as being challenges filled with opportunities (Best Case Scenario) or as being undesirable and fearful in the sense of threatening (Worse Case Scenario). When you look at a problem, do you tend to first consider the Best Case or the Worse Case? Perceptual Durability Sort: The quality of the mental constructs you build as to their being permeable (having a soft ego boundary) or impermeable (a firmer and harder ego boundary)? Do you tend to construct solid ideas, beliefs, values, etc. (Impermeable), or do you typically build ideas, beliefs, values, etc that are more susceptible to change (Impermeable)? In what contexts?

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

60

9.

Focus Sort: The preferred way of screening most of your environment screen out or allow most of it to enter into your attentional field. When you want to think about an idea or to study and meditate, do you feel the need to find a quite place (Non-Screener) or does it not matter, you can do it almost anywhere (Screener)? Can you readily screen out outside noises (Screener) or not (Non-Screener)? Philosophical Direction Sort: The preferred way of handling meaning as to the why of its origin or the how of its purpose. When you think about something, do you find yourself more concerned about the Why or do you care mostly about How to use it? Reality Structure Sort: The preferred way of thinking about what you consider reality. When you think about reality, do you think of it in terms of something permanent, solid, and that "it is what it is" (Aristotelian) or as something fluid, changing, and that it is whatever we call it, classify it, and that it depends upon our perspective and language (Non-Aristotelian)? Communication Channel Preference Sort: The preferred channel of communicating with someone as to non-verbal channels versus the verbal channel. When you think about communicating with someone, what do you tend to give more importance to either what that person says (Verbal), how he or she says it (Non-Verbal), or equally to both as para-messages?

10.

11.

12.

The Emotional Meta-Programs:

13.

Emotional Coping Style/Stress Response Sort: The preferred way a person relates to stressors in his or her life. When you feel threatened or challenged, do you respond by wanting to get away from (Passive) the stressor, respond by going at (Aggressive) the stressor, or do you respond according to the situation, from your conscious sense of choice (Assertiveness)? Frame of Reference/Authority Sort: The preferred way a person evaluates a person, situation, experience, or idea. Who or what do you rely on for your authority, yourself (Self-Referencing) or others (Other-Reference, External)? Emotional State Sort: The preferred way a person processes data (and even more so during in a stressful situation) as to stepping or getting into it and experiencing or stepping back away from it and distancing oneself from it. As you recall a stressful time at work, do you recall it by re-living the experience (Associated) or do you see yourself in the event and feel yourself as if out of it (Dissociated)? If dissociated, into what other state have you associated into (observing, feeling numb, feeling compassion, etc.)? Somatic (Body) Response Sort: The preferred way of processing data as to either very quickly or more slowly and reflective. When you come into a new situation, do you usually act quickly after sizing it up (Active), do you do a detailed study of all the consequences before acting (Reflective), or do you not act at all (Inactive)? The Convincer or Believability Sort Two Categories: a) Convincer Representation Sort: The preferred sensory system (VAK) used
61

14.

15.

16.

17.

in evaluating the qualities of an experience. As you consider a major purchase or going on an extended vacation, how do you evaluate the purchase or the vacation? Do you evaluate it more by how it looks (Visual), how it sounds (Auditory), how it feels (Kinesthetic) to you, or what you say about it (Auditory Digital)? b) Convincer Demonstration Sort: The process of moving from a mere thought to actually feeling convinced and taking action. How often do you need someone to demonstrate competency (or trustworthiness, intelligence, etc.) before you actually feel convinced that of that person's competency? 1) Immediately (Automatic)? 2) A certain number of times (Repetition)? 3) Over a certain period of time (Time Period)? 4) Never, or you constantly have to be convinced all over again (Consistent)?
18.

Emotional Direction Sort: The preferred style of either contextualizing emotions or to let emotions bleed over into other areas of life. When you think about a time when you experienced an emotional state (either positive or negative), did those emotions bleed over (Multi-Directional) and affect other states or did you contain those emotions to the experience (Uni-Directional) so that you did not allow them to contaminate other facets of your experience? Emotional Intensity/Exuberance Sort: The measurement of the emotional exuberance of a person from shy, timid, restrained, threat-sensitive to adventurous, thick-skinned and socially bold. When you think about a situation whether at work or in personal affairs that seemed risky or that involved a social situation, what thoughts-and-feelings immediately come to mind? Do you boldly go for adventure (Surgency-Boldness) or do you tend to cling to certainty and predictable experiences that offers little threat to you (Desurgency Timidity)? Do you tend to express lots of energy and passion or are more quiet and deliberate?

19.

The Volitional Meta-Programs:

20.

Direction Sort: The preferred direction that you generally take in terms of motivational strategy either moving towards what you want or away from what you want to avoid. As you think about a time when you felt highly motivated and you made it happen, what motivated you most, what you were avoiding (Away From Avoidance) by accomplishing the task or what you were getting (Toward Approach) as a result of accomplishing the task? Conation Choice in Adapting Sort: Your preferred style for dealing with instructions or for getting something done. In dealing with instructions or getting something done, do you prefer to keep your options open (Options) or to follow clear-cut directions in a step-by-step fashion (Procedures)? Adaptation Sort: The preferred way that we deal with our environment. Do you seek to adapt to the environment you live in (Perceiver-Floating) or do you seek to make the environment to adapt to you (Judger-Controlling)? Reason Sort of Modal Operator: Your preferred style for operating in the world, hence your modus operandi. How do you language yourself regarding whether or not you have choice in your life? Do you believe you
62

21.

22.

23.

have choice in life and can act upon your choices (Possibility) or do you believe there are Rules to follow and obey and so you have much less choice (Necessity)? Do you believe that life offers all kinds of opportunities (Possibilities) or do you believe there are mostly limitations and obstacles (Impossibilities)?
24.

Preference/Primary Interest Sort: Your primary focus regarding interests. If you imagined going on a two-week vacation, which one(s) of the following would you most consider in choosing where you go: 1) the People, 2) the Place itself, 3) the Things you will see and experience, 4) the Activities you will be involved in or 5) the new Information you will learn? Goal Planning and Realization Sort: Your preferred style for relating to goals. If you set a goal today to accomplish something of significance, how would you begin to work on it? Would you strive for Perfection, would you feel as much interest in the process of accomplishing the goal as you would be in obtaining the goal (Optimizing), would you avoid setting goals at all (Defeatist), or, would you go after your goal Realistically? Value Buying Sort: Your preferred value or criteria in making a purchase. When making a major purchase, what do you primarily concern yourself with: the Price, the Convenience, the Quality, or the Time? Responsibility Sort: Your preferred style in relating to the concept of responsibility. When you think about a major task that you are involved in or are responsible for, how do you feel about accomplishing it? Do you feel OverResponsible, Under-Responsible, or, somewhat Balanced in-between? People Convincer Sort: Your preferred style for relating to people in terms of quickly trusting or distrusting. When you think about meeting someone new, do you typically operate from a state of Trust until proven wrong, or do you Distrust first until they prove themselves trustworthy?

25.

26.

27.

28.

The Communication-Response Meta-Programs:

29.

Rejuvenation of Battery Sort: Your preferred way to renew your battery in terms of relating to other people and social events.. When you need your batteries recharged, do want to get with others (Extrovert), get away by yourself (Introvert), or can you equally recharge your batteries in either situation (Ambiverted)? Affiliation and Management Sort: Your preferred style for handling the experience of working with other people in a task-oriented situation. How you answer the following three questions and the order of your yes/no answers will determine this sorting pattern. 1. Do you know what you need in order to function more successfully at work (or at this task?)? 2. Do you know what someone else needs in order to function more successfully? 3. Do you find it easy to tell a person what he or she needs to do to succeed?
63

30.

a) b) c) d) e)
31.

Self and Others (Management): Answers Yes to all three. Self Only (Independent worker): Answers: Yes, No, No. Others Only (Dependent worker): Answers: No, Yes, Yes-or-No. Self but not Others (Potential Manager) : Answers: Yes, Yes-or-No, No. Team Player: Answers: Sometimes, Sometimes, Sometimes

Communication Stance Sort: Virginia Satirs five styles/modes of communicating. When under stress do you tend to 1) Blame others, 2) Placate others, especially authority figures, 3) Distract others, 4) Become SuperReasonable or Overly-Objective or 5) Speak Assertively and with conviction? General Response Sort: How we respond to people, things, information and events according to the style and energy expanded. When you come into a situation, do you usually respond with 1) Congruence with yourself (in sync) or 2) Incongruence with yourself (out of sync)? Do you respond 3) Competitively, 4) by going to the opposite (Polarity Response) or 5) by mentally going above the entire situation and thinking about it (Meta-response)? Social Somatic Response Sort: Your preferred way for responding to a social setting. When you come into a social situation (team, group, etc.), do you usually act quickly (Active-Reactive) after sizing it up or do you do a detailed study of all the consequences (Reflective-Inactive) and then act? Work Preference Sort (Social Setting): What we prefer to work with. When engaging in a significant work experience, do you prefer to work with 1) Things, 2) Systems, 3) People or 4) Information? Comparison Sort: Your preferred style for making comparisons. How do you evaluate your work? Do you value and pay more attention to the quantity of work you produce (Quantification) or the quality of your experiences (Qualification)? Knowledge Source Sort: Your preferred way to gather information. What source of knowledge do you consider authoritative and most reliable? 1) from others (Modeling), 2) by studying and researching (Conceptualizing), 3) watching someone demonstrate (Demonstrations), 4) by doing it yourself (Experiencing), or by 5) going to an authority figure (Authority)? Completion/Closure Sort: Your preferred style of handling the closure of a sytem or an open system. If, in the process of studying something, you had to break off your study and leave it, would you feel okay about this (Closure) or would you feel it as disconcerting (Non-Closure)? Do you tend to want to get things rapped up (Closure) or do you feel okay about leaving things open-ended and loose ends untied (Non-Closure)? Social Presentation: Your preferred way for moving through life in relation to people and social groups. When you think about going out into a social group, how do you generally handle yourself? Do you Shrewdly and artfully care and manipulate the impressions you make or do you really not care and just Genuinely and artlessly be yourself and let the impressions take care of themselves?

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

64

39.

Hierarchical Dominance (Power) Sort: Your preferred style and choice about how you adapt to the power moves of others. Which do you give most importance to: 1) wanting to dominate or control other people (Power), 2) wanting to build rapport and get along with them (Affiliation) or 3) just wanting to get the job done (Achievement). Values Sort: Your preferred values which arise from, and take form, from your thoughts, ideas, and understandings about what you deem important. What is important to you in your work, life, family, etc.? (Ask the question in the context of the persons life you wish to elicit his or her values.)

40.

The Meta Meta-Programs:

41.

Temper to Instruction Sort: Your preferred response when confronting someone telling you something. Can someone tell you something? Do you have a difficult time receiving instructions (Strong-Will) or are you easily told something (Compliant)? Self-Esteem Sort: Your preferred style of esteeming your self. When you esteem yourself as valuable, worthwhile, having dignity, etc., do you base it upon something you do, have, or possess (Low Self-Esteem) or do you base it upon a given, i.e., your inherent humanity, made in Gods image, etc. (High Self-Esteem)? Self-Confidence Sort: Your preferred belief in your abilities and skills to do things, tasks, etc. As self-esteem refers to our beingness, our self-confidence refers to the doingness of our experience. How confident do you feel about your abilities and skills in carrying out your work? Do you have High SelfConfidence in your ability or Low Self-Confidence? Self-Experience Sort: Your preferred concept of yourself regarding the factors that you bring to bear as you define yourself. With what do you tend to identify: 1) Mind, 2) Emotions, 3) Will, 4) Body, 5) Role or Position, 6) Spirit, or none of the above? Self Integrity Sort: Your preferred way to think and relate to your ideals, especially your ideal self, and then how you evaluate these as to how well or how poorly you live up to these ideals. When you think about how well or how poorly you live up to your ideals in actualizing your ideal self, do you feel integrated and congruous in living true to your values and vision (Harmonious Integration) or do you feel torn, conflicted, un-integrated and incongruous (Conflicted Incongruity)? Time Tense Sort: Your preferred way of sorting or distinguishing between events that have already occurred, those now occurring, and those that will occur. Where do you put most of your attention on the Past, the Present, or the Future? Time Experience Sort: Your preferred way of experiencing time and how you internally code your sense of historical time and its duration from event to event over a period of time. As you recall events of your life in the past, in the present, and in the future, do you see all those pictures out in front within your
65

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

peripheral vision or is at least one of them (probably your past pictures) behind your peripheral vision? If you see all of these pictures out in front of you, you have coded it "outside" of the experience of events, and so Through Time. If you see at least one of these pictures behind your peripheral vision you experience things In Time. Through Time people tend to be more organized and very time conscious. In Time people tend to live for the moment and less organized and time conscious.
48.

Time Access Sort: Your preferred style for accessing your memories. How do you recall information from your past? Do you go back step by step in order (Sequential) or do you just go back to wherever you wish to grab the information from (Random)? Ego Strength Sort: Your preferred style for typically responding to internal needs or external hardships. How do you typically respond to a difficulty arising in everyday life, a disappointment, a problem, a frustration that blocks your progress? Do you get annoyed and fret over it (Unstable) or do you just accept that life offers frustration and problems and one can solve them (Stable)? Morality Sort: Your preferred style for sorting out issues and concerns that fall into the category of right-and-wrong, morality, ethics, etc. When you think about messing up, doing something embarrassing, stupid, socially inept, etc., what thoughts-and-feelings flood your consciousness? Do you just disregard and refuse to experience guilt (Weak Super Ego) or do you place great importance on doing what is right and give yourself permission to experience guilt (Strong Super Ego)? Causational Sort: Your preferred style for thinking about the cause of an event or experience. How do think about what caused you to work at the job you presently work at? 1) No causation: you believe nothing actually caused it. 2) Total causation: everything results from direct and immediate causation. 3) Multi-causation: you believe that there are multiple causes. 4) Personal causation: you believe that you played a major role in causation. 5) External causation: you didnt cause anything, something else or someone else did (welfare mentality). 6) Magical causation: you believe that forces beyond this world cause things to happen. 7) Correlation" our believe there are many things which operate as correlations.

49.

50.

51.

Contact Information
Bobby G. Bodenhamer, D.Min. 1516 Cecelia Dr. Gastonia, NC 28054 704.864.3585 - Business 704.864.1545 - Fax bobbybodenhamer@yahoo.com www.masteringstuttering.com www.neurosemantics.com www.renewingyourmind.com
66