
IRC Chat Log, November 26, 1997
| Jonathan | ALRIGHTY THEN! Folks thanks for coming around.... As I mentioned by email... I wanted to cover this material under the guise of Flirtation and Rapport... but those of you who know something about NLP... know... that the tools are applicable to all manner of subjects. Tonight, I'm going to talk about how to read people's behaviors... in such a way.... as to allow you to begin to see more clearly... and hear more readily and with more acuity -- what people are telling you and what they actually mean.... and how it feels to be standing next to someone in a certain emotional state.... and I'm not sure what memories will begin to percolate as you read whats hear... and there... and when I ask for certain answers... at certain times... I'll encourage EVERYONE to think about things and give honest unconscious responses.... So does that sound like a plan? Y is good feedback...
| Jstaguy, Cardio, Cirrus, glen_ster, alchemist, Beau-Hunk, mindfunk, pwr^^3, Mork, Brent, eyepatch, | yes
| Jonathan | Kewl... Alrighty then... Right to the big picture. NLP has a topic called Meta-Programs. And they are aptly named... for they describe how people sort information in a very general way. Its not about eliciting Values. Its not about reframing. Its about stopping the internal dialogue inside your mind... and turning ALL the channels on outside your own self... and paying VERY close attention to all the information thats out there... and it is out there..... and allow it to filter through MUCH MORE OPEN filters than they were before you opened them up even more... and you can... ;) ... So as you think back to times when you paid some attention to a prospective mate or a business associate and perhaps there was a general shift... perhaps a concrete moment... when you stopped paying attention and really began to ask yourself questions inside your mind... about WHAT they possibly could have been thinking? All the time you're in there asking questions you're NOT focused on the outside... as much as you can be. Make sense so far? Y/N
| ClintPunk, Beau-Hunk, Cardio, Mork, Cirrus, glen_ster, ELMO, Jstaguy, mindfunk, alchemist, Sai | y
| Jonathan | So all this is about paying better attention. Paying much better attention can be a really wonderful thing.
| ELMO | sensory acuity
| Mork | Makes $$$ and cents
| Jonathan | yes it DOES, Mork!
| ELMO | sensory acuity?
| Jonathan | YES. We'll get into Sensory Acuity as a result of how we proceed. I want to jump right into an example. But before I do... I want to read you a definition, and discuss it briefly... Meta-Program: A level of mental programming that determines how we sort, orient to, and chunk our experiences. Our meta-programs, are more abstract than our specific strategies for thinking and define our general approach to a particular issue rather than the details of our thinking process. Now. Specifically.... Meta-Programs being MORE ABSTRACT than our specific strategies is an important concept, so stow that away inside your minds for a while! Example 1: Chunk Size
| Mork | Metaprograms are attention direction filters that determine how and what we pay attention to and at what levels....
| Jonathan | For 2 years I flew up to another city weekly... And I worked in one corporate setting where these people couldn't get anything done at all. So I went in there and I found out WHY.... they couldn't communicate. One guy would come in, and go.. "Well, we need to do better making deadlines." And the other guy would go, "right, but I get this date and its not based on anything so I have to explain it to him, I have to say, "here are all these things that need to be addressed, A B C and other things too..." and I look at the other guy and he says, "yah yah I know, but what I really want to hear is that we're just going to get it done." So clearly one wants details addressed and the other wants the big picture addressed. What went wrong? (answers are good here) ;) Anyone have any idea?
| ELMO | one guy was chunked up, one down...
| Jonathan | OK, but more...
| Odin | Their chunk sizes?
| Jonathan | right...
| alchemist | two different views of thought
| Jonathan | Chunk down in your answer... WHY weren't they in Rapport apart from the two views...?
| Beau-Hunk | can't help it if my chunk is bigger than most
| Jonathan | Its not so much the difference... but... One of you is BOUND to get this...
| Melinda | hehe
| ClintPunk | Because one's ass was on the line, and the other had the power position.
| Jonathan | True... and thats a GOOD answer, but I'm looking for something different. Specifically its not the diff that makes the diff
| ClintPunk | One is procedural
| Jonathan | but in terms of how each one has an outcome,
| Mork | One was looking for what was working..one was sorting for what wasn't?
| ClintPunk | the other is bottom line oriented.
| ELMO | i /we conflict?
| ClintPunk | Results vs. How to get there?
| Beau-Hunk | One had to REGULARLY deal with those small chunks, for the other, those "large" chunks WERE his small chunks... he had a different view.
| Jonathan | and NONE of that outcome... (Yes, Mork's closer) included making sure the other person got a piece of their outcome...! Its all about OUTCOMES.
| Cardio | one's primary thought was the outcome, the others primary thought was the process
| ClintPunk | sounds like what I was trying to say
| Jonathan | Its about recognizing other people's needs and FEEDING information to the other person in the way that they understand it.
| StageHyp | Kewl
| Jonathan | ;) Make sense?
| ClintPunk, glen_ster, ELMO | yes
| Jonathan | This is basic stuff but its often left out of specific discussions of meta-programs and other tools.
| ClintPunk | Dovetailing outcomes?
| Jonathan | I mean, whats the point unless we KNOW BEFORE YOU START what the point of paying such close attention is!
| ELMO | zactly
| ClintPunk | yup, zactly
| Jonathan | Its all about gathering CONCRETE (as close to) OBJECTIVE (as possible) INFORMATION.
| ELMO | know not only what you want, but what they want..
| StageHyp | It's about comminucating like they listen?
| Jonathan | Once you have it, you can make better decisions about how to proceed. So. With chunk size.
| ClintPunk | How specifically would one do that?
| Jonathan | And with other things. People FEED INFORMATION TO YOU IN THE WAY THEY WANT IT FED BACK TO THEM! Make sense?
| Jonathan | If someone's chunking UP, you should chunk UP to make better sense to them!
| vk7, Cardio, Beau-Hunk, eyepatch, Cirrus | y
| Jonathan | Versa-Vice with DOWN.
| Melinda | what if they blow chunks?
| ELMO | and use some of their content
| Wolfadom | ewww
| Jonathan | But there are exceptions. And that leads into the next Meta-Program. And I never met a Program without bugs. Like this one bugs me. Because I don't like being bugged by what should be the same but seems different.
| Cirrus | you determine that a person wnats/needs (chunk wise) by what they give you...
| vk7 | The chunking meta-program, is it most visible or most useful for rapport?
| Jonathan | Or, as though whats different causes the opposite responses......
| ELMO | as well as the many other modalities in their programs..
| kamilian | that language bugs me
| Jonathan | and how that doesn't make sense at alll, did it, because that's how MISMATCHERS understand reality. They like to mismatch. Ever meet someone who had to argue with everything you said?
| ELMO | we don't necessarily...LOL
| Jonathan | That was their way of RELATING to you.
| StageHyp | Oh yeah... Who hasn't met a mismatcher?
| Jonathan | You might have gone thru the roof feeling berated or argued to death, but somehow, they thought it was cool to challenge everything, didn't they? And when the friendship or affair ended, it was a bit of a shock, eh? Like, where did that come out of the blue? ;)
| ELMO | we don't want to not match... we just prefer not to..
| Beau-Hunk, ELMO | y
| Jonathan | yep. Anyway. So. Mismatchers. Or not. The brain has an interesting thing going on with how people sort for sameness vs difference, does it not? I mean, WE RECOGNIZE and feel comfortable by what's the SAME. We LEARN by what's different.
| ELMO | thar he blows!
| Beau-Hunk | But we don't want to just feed back argumentative behavior...
| Jonathan | So what is the implication there?
| Melinda | ...chunks
| Jonathan | Right, Beau... So lets get some comments out on this before I go on...
| alchemist | learn their model?
| ClintPunk | We should mismatch them!
| Jonathan | mm hmmm.... though it can be an annoying process to go thru...
| ClintPunk | Mismatch their mismatching.
| Jonathan | Clint -- right, if that feeds into your outcome.
| Beau-Hunk | I wouldn't feed back that kind of behavior because it would DECREASE the amount of communication ...seems to me anyway.
| Jonathan | RIGHT, Beau!
| Mork | Or point out that mismatching has it's place..but can also cause a person to lose out!
| ClintPunk | But then you gradually match back.
| | |