Just an expression?
Stuhar
a cigar". For NLPers, given the "L" part of NLP, do you think a verbal
expression is ever "just an expression" that doesn't actually reveal any
deeper pattern? For example, could "I suppose we should get dinner ready"
really come from opportunity thinking, even though the expression uses a
modal operator of necessity? Does "see what I mean?" necessarily come from
V, or can it be a neutral, sensory non-specific throwaway alternative for
"Do you understand?"?
Having a background in languages, I tend to think that people's choice of
words is always signficant in terms of deeper patterns. So once I've
calibrated for individual maps and contexts, I assume that nothing that the
other person says is random.
Waddya think?
Curiously
Stuart
David Gould
wrote:
>Having a background in languages, I tend to think that people's choice of
>words is always signficant in terms of deeper patterns. So once I've
>calibrated for individual maps and contexts, I assume that nothing that the
>other person says is random.
>
>Waddya think?
One of the NLP presuppositions is "All behaviour is systematic". So no,
it's not random, but it's often not as grossly simple as the examples
you gave.
I'll give you another example. There's a lie-detection method that
calibrates purely to the words (8%?) and is astonishingly successful.
You need a fairly lengthy transcript, preferably an interview, but most
people find telling a straight lie very difficult. They'll say
something like "I NEVER did it" or "I wasn't there".
Anyway, as regards the words they use, they'll often use different words
when talking about the same thing (presumably coming from a different
representation in their head). In the example I read (Desiree Williams
testimonial against Mike Tyson), she used Father and Dad in different
contexts. One was previously used in a vengeful context, and hence
likely to be vengeful with future usage.
Unfortunately I have lost the link which makes more sense :(
Another example: "I did not sleep with that woman - Monica Lewinsky".
Why didn't Bill say "I did not sleep with Monica Lewinsky"? Because he
was lying in front of an audience of 100+ million people.
Rgacons
>expression is ever "just an expression" that doesn't actually reveal any
>deeper pattern?
Well, why dont you read about Humberto Maturana? He has very interesting
concepts about languaje which match perfect.
You could find some in:
Ernest
Stuhar
"David Gould" <da...@deep-trance.com>
> I'll give you another example. There's a lie-detection method that
> calibrates purely to the words (8%?) and is astonishingly successful.
Thanks David
You raise another question that I've been meaning to put to the group. I've
often heard NLPers quote a study that breaks down communication into 7%
words, 38% tone of voice and 55% physiology. Looking beyond the figures, I
guess the point is that words are only a small part of what we really
communicate. I'm comfortable to go along with that, regardless of studies,
but I'd be interested to know if there are more recent studies that have
confirmed or modified the old 7%-37%-55% warhorse.
Grossly
Stuart
David Gould
wrote:
>> I'll give you another example. There's a lie-detection method that
>> calibrates purely to the words (8%?) and is astonishingly successful.
>
>You raise another question that I've been meaning to put to the group. I've
>often heard NLPers quote a study that breaks down communication into 7%
>words, 38% tone of voice and 55% physiology. Looking beyond the figures, I
>guess the point is that words are only a small part of what we really
>communicate. I'm comfortable to go along with that, regardless of studies,
>but I'd be interested to know if there are more recent studies that have
>confirmed or modified the old 7%-37%-55% warhorse.
Hehe, I can never remember whether it's 8-37-55 or 7-38-55 either ;)
I believe one of the two original researches has disclaimed it.
It's also context sensitive (eg here it's 100% words) and different
groups will pay respond differently to the different channels.
If you're communicating for more than a minute you might as well do your
own research there and then.
Kurt Arbuckle
: You raise another question that I've been meaning to put to the group. I've
: often heard NLPers quote a study that breaks down communication into 7%
: words, 38% tone of voice and 55% physiology. Looking beyond the figures, I
: guess the point is that words are only a small part of what we really
: communicate. I'm comfortable to go along with that, regardless of studies,
: but I'd be interested to know if there are more recent studies that have
: confirmed or modified the old 7%-37%-55% warhorse.
Yes, but I don't have citations. The gist of the most recent research
is that words are very important for conveying information. Body language
and tonality become important in evaluating the trustworthyness/sincerity
of the speaker. The old studies and the new studies are really consistant,
it is just that the 7/38/55 rule has been misstated to mean that we somehow
convey more information non-verbally. This is only true of a narrow aspect
of communication. If you are in a group where you already have credibility,
they will listen to what you are saying more than tonation and body language.
Of course the tone and body language are still important, especially tone.
Tone is a part of language and does signal meaning, not only distinguishing
questions, comments, and commands, but also such things as sarcasm and
confrontation.
Kurt
BigJiim
I'm going to go with the original question of 'is sometime a statement just a
statement?' Whatever that means. Sometimes I think word processes
become so used, so repeated that they just become a new nominalization for a
past process that we used to use many sentences for.
Before it might have been "hey buddy. I haven't seen you for a while.
god it's good to see you. I know you've been busy and I really haven't kept in
touch that much, I was wondering what have you been doing in your life?"
Now it's "Hey, what's up?"
JAT,
big jim
Rex Sikes
accrording to the researcher Albert Merhebian who headed up the study and who has
been quoted all these years. For years I have pointed out that Dr. Merhebian
recanted this research, still it has seeped into common lore as a result of
nlpers and others sourcing it.
Other estimates by other studies place nonverbals at 80 - 98% too.
The point is you can use the merhebian work to point to the fact that nonverbal
are very important even if the information presented is inaccurate.
Take care and enjoy!
Rex
Kurt Arbuckle wrote:
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates fill fast so book Rex Now!!! Call 262-548-4144
http://www.AmazingRex.com
Rex Sikes World's First Motivational Mind Reader
"Mystery is the fundamental emotion that stands at
the cradle of true art and true science." Albert Einstein
Rex Sikes
Or something to that effect. Anyway - try an Internet search on his name and
maybe you'll find some of his published works.
Enjoy!
Rex
Michael DeBusk
> ever "just an expression" that doesn't actually reveal any
> deeper pattern?
I don't think so. With the billions of possible combinations of
phonemes available to us, the fact that we can think something, make
some noises with our mouths, and suddenly have someone else think a
thought along similar lines can never be a random thing. Our brain has
a way of choosing what it will say.
--
You will find no porn at http://users.eclipsetel.com/~debu4335
Michael DeBusk
> I'll give you another example. There's a lie-detection method that
> calibrates purely to the words (8%?) and is astonishingly successful.
If you come across the docs behind this, I'd love to know more.
I'm very good at lie-detection with people I know reasonably well, and
the "where'd that word come from?" approach is one tool I use.
I got so good at it with one lady that I could even tell when something
was false even if she believed it was true. I was a little sad about
that under the circumstances, actually. I started knowing things about
which I would probably have liked to remain ignorant.
Michael DeBusk
> Sometimes I think word processes become so used, so repeated that
> they just become a new nominalization for a past process that we
> used to use many sentences for.
Techie term for that is "idiom", IIRC. Goes along with the
thread-hijack on British and Cockney slang. :)
Craigy B
>So once I've
>calibrated for individual maps and contexts, I assume that nothing that the
>other person says is random.
I had an interesting thought reading this, other than the one that agreed in
theory that this is probably true...
And it was to remember that even when you have apparently successfully
calibrated to another individual...
to remember two further possibilities assuming the scenario of a one to one
meeting with a complete stranger...
1 The maps and references you've claibrated to are more than likely context
dependant
2 You may have mapped to a person who has already begun calibrating towards
you... in which case you could possibly be mapping some hybrid of both your
worlds. Or possibly less a hybrid than some new map of the world.
Spooky
Craigy B