First published in the Proceedings of the
Intgral
NLP Conference 2004
and then in The Model, the magazine of the British Board of Neuro-Linguistic Programming January 2007.
Whose map is it anyway?
Phil Swallow and Wendy Sullivan
Once we accept that we always affect a person with
whom we interact, we can also realise that there are many ways to
avoid clumsily trampling over another's map and even attempting to
re-write it for them.
The map is not the territory
'The map is not the territory' is one of the
presuppositions of NLP. The original version was written by
Korzypski:
"a map is not the territory it
represents, but if correct, it has a similar structure to the
territory, which accounts for its usefulness." [1]
'The map is not the territory' directs attention
to our experience of 'reality' and it applies in various ways.
Firstly, we have five senses through which we
interact with the world and these senses are limited. They do not
take in everything, e.g. we can not hear a full range of sounds. This
means that the 'map' or model that we build of what's actually out
there (or 'reality') will always be limited because we do not have a
full set of data from which to work.
Secondly, we are limited by the amount of
information that we can take in at a time. The well-known research of
George Miller [2]
determined that we can, on average, remember 5 - 9 numbers when we
hear them as a list. Beyond that, we are overloaded and can take no
more in. This experience of overload further affects our ability to
have a complete sense of the territory.
Thirdly, even within the range of sounds, sights,
smells etc. that we do experience, we each have our own personal
filters that allow in only some of the information. The rest is
deleted, distorted or generalised as we aim to make sense of the
incoming information by filtering for patterns that match our
culture, interests, language, values, beliefs, understanding of past
and present contexts; in fact, everything we have learned in our
lives.
The filtered information is used as a
're-presentation' of a perceived reality that is unique to the
individual.
You can see how, just like real maps, each
person's map of the territory has only some of the features of the
territory, and will therefore be good for one purpose but not
another, and risks becoming outdated if it is not regularly
updated.
In summary, we perceive the territory (that is
the world and our environment) via sensory input, we the information by
comparing it with our stored experience and we project meaning back out towards
the territory and call it 'reality'. We then make our decisions based
on that and behave in relation to it. And because it is a constructed
reality, we all have a different idea of what reality is.
Take this true story for example: Two people are
driving along when one exclaims: "Look at that beautiful tree!"
At the same time, the other says 'Look at that
beautiful sports car!"
The first has not noticed the sports car and the
second hasn't noticed the tree, even though the car and tree are both
within their field of vision. Both of them have deleted what they are
uninterested in and both assume -- wrongly -- that the other person
is interested in seeing what they themselves find interesting.
We tend to assume that, because something in our
map has a meaning for us, it will have the same meaning for others --
and if it doesn't, then it must be because they are wrong. When one
realizes that the other person is probably doing the same, then it is
easy to see how misunderstandings and conflicts arise between
people.
So, NLP suggests that it may be useful to keep in
mind the concept of 'the map is not the territory'.
So whose map is it anyway?
The understanding that another person's reality
makes perfect sense to them makes it easier to treat them with
respect and without making judgments or assumptions about
them.
This is put to the test when we communicate.
Before talking, there is a further filtering process (deleting,
distorting and generalising again) to choose what to say and what not
to say. Then commonly, the speaker talks and assumes that the
listener understands exactly what they mean. The listener also
assumes that they know precisely what the speaker means, and paints
in all the missing details from within their own map. Both parties
assume that they have communicated successfully -- which they may or
may not have done - and sometimes it may not matter very much either
way. But at times, the costs of a misunderstanding can multiply if
not noticed early. Being able to make a distinction between your map
and others' maps is a valuable skill if, for example, you want
to:
- Find out how someone does something (model
them)
- Discuss an issue or argue better
- Avoid misunderstandings in the first
place
- Stand your ground
- Help others make changes that will stand the
test of time
If we could just stop making assumptions, we could
distinguish between our own map and those of others, but people are
meaning-making beings and assumptions are a vital part of life.
What we can do is become more aware of
our assumptions, be aware of the potential consequences of leaping to
a conclusion, drop an assumption as soon as we get evidence that
doesn't support it, and keep our assumptions to ourselves.
As we use our maps to navigate the territory of
life, we make assumptions about areas where there is no information.
This is a useful skill, much of the time.
However when another person's map forms part of
the unknown territory that we are navigating through, we run the risk
of creating conflict if we make assumptions about their map (e.g.
that they see the world as we do). And this is all the more so if the
other person is in a vulnerable state, e.g. in facilitator/ therapist
- client relationship.
It makes sense then to minimise the need for
assumptions by finding out what is actually in each other's map. This
process of finding out is called modelling.
Modelling
Modelling Others
Modelling others involves noticing their
behaviour, listening to what they say and asking questions. In this
way we build up our model of their reality.
In classic NLP behavioural modelling, we build a
model of someone's pattern of excellence. We want to get the most
accurate model possible, to construct a more generalised model for
passing on to others.
When we are modelling someone else, as far as
possible we want to keep our own stuff out of the model so that it is
a faithful representation of how that person does what they do. We
call this being 'clean'.
Self-Modelling
Being clean is even more important when
facilitating a client to self-model. Here the client is building a
model of their own experience. They are both the modeller and the
person being modelled. We are just facilitating that process.
Inevitably we are producing our own model of their stuff but the
purpose is for the person to build their own model of their
process.
Modelling for Change
Modelling is a great way to work respectfully with
someone who wants to change something in their map. The difference
between modelling and modelling for change is that the client
expresses a desire for you to work with them to help them to achieve
something that they want. These conditions form the contract between
the facilitator and client.
As facilitators we need to be particularly
vigilant when change is in the air, because it is so ingrained in us
to want to make things right for people, and to make suggestions that
we know work every time... in our map. But if change isn't going to
come from our brilliant suggestions, then where is it going to come
from? The answer is that it is going to emerge organically from the
client's own self-modelling process. The change that emerges from
their system will 'fit' their system perfectly.
Being Clean
The Clean Continuum
|
|
When the client presents a
desired outcome for change, |
|
the facilitator can choose to
be:
|
|
cleanest
|
cleaner
|
cleanish
|
dirtyish
|
dirtier
|
dirtiest
|
|
by deciding to
|
|
make no attempt to affect the client in
any way
|
facilitate client to self-model |
|
so that home-grown changes emerge from clientís own
map
|
model the clientís map |
|
then offer a range of suggestions from various maps that
client can choose from
|
model the clientís map |
|
then offer a suggestion for change from facilitatorís
own map
|
seek to impose suggestion from
facilitatorís map on to clientís map
|
force client to comply with
facilitatorís suggestions
|
Staying Clean
There are three fundamental parts to being
clean:
Listening
The facilitator listens to what the
client says and also pays attention to non-verbal behaviour
(gestures, line-of-sight, etc) and voice tone, emphasis, skin tone,
etc. This kind of listening involves curiosity, rather than listening
just long enough to leap to a conclusion. It also allows the client
to enjoy periods of silence for thinking without being
interrupted.
Using the Other Person's Words
Using the client's own words when
describing their experience helps them to stay in touch with their
own experience. It also directs their attention to a particular
aspect of their experience, preparing the way for a clean
question.
Asking Clean Questions
Clean questions request the client to
consider particular aspects of their experience, without making
assumptions as to the outcome of that consideration and without
putting in any of the facilitator's own experiences.
Clean Language and Symbolic Modelling
[3]
Clean Language and Symbolic Modelling
make it possible to create models of a client's experience while
minimising the intrusion of the facilitator. Clean Language was
developed by David Grove and consists of questions that contain as
few assumptions as possible. Clean Language, metaphor and modelling
form the heart of Symbolic Modelling, which was developed by Penny
Tompkins and James Lawley.
How to use Clean Language
When we use the word 'symbol' below, we mean it in
the sense used in Symbolic Modelling. Symbolic Modelling works with
maps, which it calls the 'metaphor landscape'. Elements on the map
are referred to as 'symbols' and can be anything from a word, a
feeling or a concept, through to a full-blown metaphor.
Clean Language Questions
Attributes
The attribute questions ask the client to develop
the form of the symbol by exploring its attributes, characteristics
or functions.
Is there anything else about
x?
Client: I want to live in a house in
the sun
Facilitator: Is there anything else about that
sun?
What kind of x?
Cl: I want to live in a house in the
sun
Fac: What kind of house is that house?
Location
This question asks the client to consider where
the symbol is in perceptual space, that is, where they have stored
the representation. It is often used in a sequence of two or three
repetitions to pinpoint the symbol.
Where/whereabouts?
Cl: I want to live in a house in the
sun
Fac: Where is a house in the sun?
Cl: Oh, in Spain
Fac: Whereabouts in Spain?
Cl: In the south, in Andalucia
Relationship
Since there will be more than one symbol in a
metaphor landscape, it is useful to be able to model the relationship
between these symbols and how they affect each other etc.
Is there a relationship
between?
Cl: I want to live in a house in the
sun
Fac: Is there a relationship between the house and
the sun?
Cl: Yes, it needs to be a house that faces
south
Time and Sequence
All events take place in time and space. These
questions ask the client to pay attention to the before and after of
an event or symbol. They are particularly useful for modelling a
sequence or a pattern of repeated behaviour.
What happens just
before?
Cl: I want to live in a house in the
sun
Fac: ...what happens just before you live in a
house in the sun?
Cl: I need to buy the house
Fac: ...what happens just before you buy the
house?
Cl: I have to sell the house I have now
Then what happens?
Cl: I want to live in a house in the
sun
Fac: ... and when you live in a house in the sun,
then what happens?
Cl: I am more contented with life
Fac: ... and when you are more contented, then
what happens?
Cl: Then I have more time for others
Asking the questions
There are three steps in asking Clean
Language questions.
Cl: I want to live in a
house in the sun
1. Acknowledge what the client has said by
repeating
Fac: And you want to live in a house
in the sun...
2. Direct their attention to a part of what they
said
Fac: ... and when a house in the
sun...
3. Ask a Clean Language question about that
part
Fac: ... is there anything else about
that house?
So the Facilitator's response will be:
Fac: And you want to live in a house
in the sun... and when a house in the sun...there anything else about
that house?
Applications
By now you are probably aware that there are many
applications of Clean Language. Here are some:
- Establishing rapport
- Coaching
- Counselling
- Personal development
- Improving personal relationships
- Interviewing (Caitlin Walker is trains police
officers in Clean Language to help them interview vulnerable
witnesses without asking leading questions)
- Conflict resolution
- Team Building: developing an understanding of
other team members and developing a shared understanding of the
team's vision for the future.
Being 'clean' in NLP processes
Many NLP techniques make use of a standard
metaphor that is traditionally associated with the technique, for
example, the 'Circle' of Excellence.
Using these techniques, the Practitioner generally
assumes that the client shares their understanding of that metaphor
and also buys in to it. Some clients do not like the idea of stepping
into an imaginary circle. In one instance, the client could not do so
because the circle kept moving!
It is possible to use Clean Language to develop a
metaphor that suits the client better (while maintaining the
essential useful structure of the technique). In this way, the
facilitator can guide them in a way that more fully honours the
client's map of the world.
Another example is in the use that NLP makes of
anchoring, either the present state or a resource state, or both.
Using Clean Language questions to help a client develop a metaphor
for a resource state will increase the strength and efficacy of the
kinaesthetic anchor that the facilitator uses with the client.
"it is the client who knows what
hurts, what direction to go, what problems are crucial, what
experiences have been deeply buried ... unless I had a need to
demonstrate my cleverness and learning, I would do better to rely
upon my client for the direction of movement in the
process." Carl Rogers [4]
References:
1 Korzybski , A, Science and
Sanity, The International Non-Aristotelian
Library Publishing Company (distributed by the Institute of General
Semantics) 1933
2 Miller, G. "The magic number 7 plus or minus 2: Some Limits
on our Capacity to Process Information" Psychological Review (63), pp.
81-97, 1956
3 When you tell others about this work, we request that you
credit David Grove for his work in devising Clean Language and Penny
Tompkins and James Lawley for Symbolic Modelling. See Penny and
James' website www.cleanlanguage.co.uk for many articles on this and related subjects, and for
details of their book, Metaphors in Mind which is the definitive guide to Clean Language and
Symbolic Modelling.
We are indebted to Penny and James for their great
generosity in supporting our learning and development. They are
an inspiration and a model for us both.
4 Rogers, C quoted p. 122, Handbook of Individual Therapy,
Dryden W (ed.), Sage, 1996
© 2004,Phil Swallow and
Wendy Sullivan
