| NLP |
|---|
| MeSH D020557 |
The meta-model (initially named meta-model of therapy[1] and also known as meta-model of language[2]) is a pragmatic communications model used to specify information in a speaker's language. It is often contrasted with the intentionally ambiguous Milton Erickson inspired-Milton model. The meta model was originally presented in The Structure of Magic I: A Book About Language and Therapy in 1975[1] by Richard Bandler and linguist John Grinder, the co-founders of neuro-linguistic programming, who collaborated between 1973 and 1975.
The authors were particularly interested in the patterns of language and behavior that effective psychotherapists used with their clients to effect change.[1] They observed and imitated gestalt therapist Fritz Perls and family systems therapist Virginia Satir in person and via recordings. The authors cited Noam Chomsky's transformational syntax, which was John Grinder's linguistics specialization, and ideas about human modeling from the work of Alfred Korzybski as being influential in their thinking. Of particular interest was Korzybski's critique of cause-effect rationale and his notion that "the map is not the territory" which also featured in Gregory Bateson's writing.[3]
The meta model consists of categories of questions or heuristics which seek to challenge linguistic distortion, clarify generalization and recover deleted information which occurs in a speaker's language. Typically, questions may be in the form of "What X, specifically?", "How specifically?", "According to whom?" and "How do you know that?". A follow-up to the meta model was the authors' Milton H. Erickson-inspired model called the Milton model which is used to soften the meta model, maintain rapport, make indirect suggestion and to allow the client to generate their own meaning for what was said.[4]
Contents |
Definition of the meta-model:
People respond to events based on their internal pictures, sounds and feelings. They also collect these experiences into groups or categories that are labeled with words. The meta-model is a method for helping someone go from the information-poor word maps back to the specific sensory-based experiences they are based on. It is here in the information-rich specific experiences that useful changes can be made that will result in changes in behavior."[5]
Uses of meta model in psychotherapy:
"The question the PTSD victim often asks is, why did this happen to me? The astute clinician needs to probe for the deep meaning (Bandler & Grinder, 1975) of the term "this." What specific aspect(s) of the event have toxic meanings to the individual? In addition, the clinician needs to assess the specific attributions that patients give to their responses. For instance, if they believe that because they have intrusive memories of the experience, they are crazy, this will lead to increased suffering."[6]
At a deep level of thought, a speaker has a more complete representation of the intended communication. Bandler and Grinder equated this level of thought to what Noam Chomsky described as the deep structure. In 1957, Chomsky published Syntactic Structures, in which he developed the idea that each sentence in a language has two levels of representation — a deep structure and a surface structure.[7] The deep structure represented the core semantic relations of a sentence, and was mapped on to the surface structure (which followed the phonological form of the sentence very closely) via transformations. Bandler and Grinder believed that for efficiency in communication, information is transformed, that is, thought is subject to an unconscious process of deletion, generalization and distortion which is influenced by pre-existing beliefs, strategies, memories, and decisions. What is represented (at the surface structure) as spoken word or written down is a mere subset of the original thought revealing distorted assumptions, mystical thinking, over-simplification, impoverished experience and, thus, limited maps of the world. These limitations are challenged in the meta model to clarify, and elaborate a client's communication and maps of the world which Bandler and Grinder believed had therapeutic benefit.[1]
Bandler and Grinder also acknowledged the influence of Korzybski's dictum, "The map is not the territory". They try to signify that individual people in fact do not in general have access to absolute knowledge of reality, but in fact only have access to a set of beliefs they have built up over time, about reality. So it is considered important to be aware that people's beliefs about reality and their awareness of things (the "map") are not reality itself or everything they could be aware of ("the territory"). Bandler and Grinder, like Korzybski, held that many people do confuse maps with territories which may limit an individual's understanding and cognitive abilities unless the two are distinguished.
The third aspect of the meta model involve the use of intuition. Bandler and Grinder held that the exceptional communicators that they modeled used the meta model intuitively. They believed that a therapist who has more experiences with dealing with clients will tend to have a better instinct or intuition about what they should do in certain situations.[3] The reliability of one’s intuition depends greatly on past knowledge and occurrences in a specific area. This is not to say that one with a great amount of experience is always going to have an accurate intuition (because some can be biased); however, the chances of it being more reliable are definitely amplified.[8]
Bandler and Grinder's (1975) model focuses on semantic ill-formedness and distortions, which they argued was a linguistic cue to a speaker's impoverished or limited experience of the world.
In this model, a "presupposition" is a statement in which one or more unstated assumption(s) must be taken for granted (presupposed) for the statement to make sense.
Example 1:
Example 2:
Example 3:
Cause-effect, this shows how to identify the inappropriate use of causal thinking (x means y, x makes me y, or x makes y happen), which is considered semantically ill-formed and unacceptable (irrational).[9]
Causality always implies at least some relationship of dependency between the cause and the effect. For example, deeming something a cause may imply that, all other things being equal, if the cause occurs the effect does as well, or at least that the probability of the effect occurring increases.
Example 1:
Example 2:
Mind-reading violation occurs when someone claims to think they know what another is thinking without verification. Assuming the intentions of others or how someone will act without evidence or confirmation.
Example 1:
Example 2:
Example 3:
A nominalization is a verb (process word) which has been transformed into an abstract noun. It is like taking a snapshot of a moving object; subjectively the representation has less "movement", and seems like a "static" representation. That is, a dynamic process (or verb) is transformed into a static thing (or noun).
Examples of nominalization
Example 1:
Example 2:
applicability (from applicable)
carelessness (from careless)
difficulty (from difficult)
failure (from fail)
intensity (from intense)
investigation (from investigate)
reaction (from react)
These examples are used to show how to identify limiting use of language. When a verb is used instead, the mind of the user becomes more flexible in terms of seeing different points of view and looking for solutions to problems.[10]
Complex equivalence (X↔Y, or X is equivalent to Y) draws an unsubstantiated link between an event and its consequence. The logic just does not follow.
A universal quantifier is a word which binds a quality to everything, or every relevant thing it refers to (a lot, all, every, everyone, most, no, none, never, nobody, no-one, some, somebody). It occurs when someone attempts to characterize something as true for everything, everyone or all those in a set. The words in italics are called quantifiers.
Example 1:
Example 2:
Example 3:
Example 4:
Modal operator verbs give more information about the function of the main verb that follows it. Although having a great variety of communicative functions, these functions can all be related to a scale ranging from possibility (can) to necessity (must). Modal operators are formally characterised by expressing a modal attitude, such as necessity (modal verbs: have to, must, should) or possibility (can, might, may) towards the proposition to which it is applied. They can also appear in the contracted negated form (e.g. shouldn't, can't, mustn't).
The modal operator of necessity (e.g. must, should, ought to, have to, its necessary to, ...) expresses an absolute (often moral) obligation, order or requirement.
The modal operators of necessity, shall/should, in 1st person objective though not moral obligation, no choice, as in:
The modal operators of possibility (e.g. can, could, might, may, its possible to, ...) expresses intention, permission, option or choice.
In a simple deletion an important element in a statement is missing. For example:
Example 1:
Example 2:
Example 3:
In these examples, the key words to look out for are it and that.
The appropriate response would be to ask what, where or when exactly? e.g. "Go and do what exactly?" This example is used for teaching how to identify this common linguistic distortion. In responding, this question is considered to help gather information about the limiting pattern of the client.
In an unspecified verb it is not clear how the action creates or created the result.
Example 1:
Example 2:
Unspecified Comparatives or null comparative is a comparative in which the starting point for comparison is not stated.
Example comparisons in English:
| good | better | best |
| well | better | best |
| bad | worse | worst |
| far | farther | farthest |
| far | further | furthest |
| little | littler, less(er) | littlest, least |
| many | more | most |
Example 1:
Example 2:
Example 3:
Unspecified referential index, refers to the use of personal pronoun (they, them, you, he, she, men, women, ...) when the context is unknown, or can not easily be understood based on the preceding sentences. For example uncontextualised use of they, them, you, ...
Examples:
Lost Performative makes reference to a performative speech act, but the person who is the source of it, and sometimes the speech act itself, is unspecified. This often takes the form of a value judgment without acknowledgment of the fact that a person is the source of that value judgment.
Example 1:
Example 2:
Example 3:
Bandler and Grinder originally developed NLP for gathering quality information. However, prior to that development, John Grinder did his doctoral thesis on Noam Chomsky's Transformational Grammar.[3]
It can also be traced to the nominalistic tradition of William of Ockham.
An effort unrelated by origin but going in the same direction of improving clarity of communication is the constructed language Loglan (and its close cousin, Lojban).
Influenced by Korzybski's critique of cause effect (x makes me feel y).[9]