The Meta-model of NLP

How do you teach the meta-model?

One can ask what it is and that means asking questions to clarify information. To find out the deletions,distortions and generalizations in a statement. Teaching it that way sucks btw as none would understand what to do then.

If someone says “ I hate my neighbors” you might be scared as you’re a neighbor yourself  and when you ask them what you mean by hate? They will say I hate how their garden looks so good…and your assumption “hate” leading to violence can be assured to be false.

Its easy to jump to conclusion what people mean when they don’t mean what they say as you lack information that needs to be clarified by asking questions.

I simply ask, what you mean by that or why statement questions.

I understand why we ask those questions and how to organize the information.

The way they teach this in NLP does not do that.

If you understand the work I do with RBIm then you also will find why I ask questions the way I do. Since everything we do is organized into contextual forms which btw NLP don’t understand and cant work with their teachings with the metamodel will always be a hack.

  • First: what’s the context?
  • Second: What’s the comparison?

Once you defined those you also ask questions to clarify those first as then you will be able to understand the statement made by the individual or yourself.

All statements we make are made by causality which means X leads to Y.

NLP assumed that asking questions the way they do in therapy as Milton did was the way to go about doing it but the way modeling works in NLP the way Grinder teaches it don’t allow for you to uncover how it works as you be stuck within the process of the model Grinder provides you with.

My models don’t.

They are better.

Now statements like “ I am stuck” “Life sucks”  “Get a life.” “Must you wear that silly hat?” “I can’t have a relationship until I lose weight.”

Now normally you challenge the statement by offering a example back but often that example wont be good enough for the individual and wont help them either.

  • “Must you wear that silly hat?”
  • “Silly in whose opinion?”

Now that might lead to a clarifying statement but why even ask that question?

You already know the person saying it think its silly. No need to ask.
you also know the individual wearing the hat most likely does not think its silly.

So there should be here a reason for this exchange to occur which is a context and a casual statement trough comparison. Which btw isn’t stated and then should be uncovered to make sense of the exchange of silly hats.

It might be someone jealous of the hat, or feeling unsecure about the situation and hats or whatever else but that isn’t clarified yet and I wouldn’t even question such due to people make statements all the time and their opinion about life is neither right or wrong it just is their opinion about something.

Take “Make America great again” stated by Donald Trump. Wearing a baseball cap made in Taiwan.

Now you have his statement and his behavior that is acting against one another.

I believe the behavior not the statement.

When people make statements and then have behaviors not doing the action we have a discrepancy here. That’s the part you want to uncover to understand what’s going on.

When the drug addict tells you they going clean and then end up buying drugs their statement means what?

People might believe things but that isn’t reality.

If your behavior don’t match the statement we have a deletion, distortion and a generalization happening.

That’s how you teach the meta-model so its actually useful to use.