The Meta-Programs of Willing and Choosing Everything is complicated until you understand it.
“Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.” Napolean I
Today we commonly think of our inner world as made up of two key factors—mind and emotion. It hasn’t always been that way. Once people commonly conceptualized and spoke about human
experience as involving three things: mind, emotion, and will. Will or choice was called conation. As psychology began in the twentieth century, “will” was viewed in the Victorian sense of “grinning and bearing” struggle and so fell out of favor.
Then people began to rediscover will. Otto Rank, one of the first psychoanalysts, left the Freudian school and began focusing on will and its central role in human experience. So did Rollo May (Love
and Will) as did William Glasser (Reality Therapy) and others in the human potential movement.
NLP picked up on this in its thematic focus that people can learn to “run their own brains.” Yet in this rediscovery, will is not in the old Victorian sense of “will power,” “grinning and bearing
difficulties,” or forcing one’s way through life. Will is much more dynamic and alive than that.
Will is the sense of choice, awareness of options, and the ability to sayNo to some choices that we
can say Yes to more valued choices, experiences, and visions. In will we literally “cut off” (de- cision) one choice or option from the other as we decide. In a decision state, our cognitive understandings of our choices, together with our emotions of attraction and aversion, move us to
choice points where we decide. In these states we perceive the world in terms of how we make
choices and our characteristic styles of choosing. Our conative meta-programs describe these perceptions of choice and choosing.
This chapter explores these meta-programs of choice which deal with another facet in our focus of attention —conation, choosing, willing, and attending our intentions. We commonly speak about this as our will, what we intend to think, perceive, feel, and do, and what we then follow up with
attention.
#34. Convincer Demonstration: Number of times
Length of time
#35. Motivation Direction:
Toward — Away From
#36. Operational Style:
Options — Procedures
#37. Adaptation:
Judging — Perceiving
#38. Modus Operandi:
Necessity, Possibility, Impossibility #39. Preference:
People, Place, Things, Activity, Information #40. Goal Striving: Skeptic — Optimization — Perfectionism #41. Buying:
Cost, Quality, Time #42. Social Convincer: Distrusting — Trusting #43. Interactive: Competitive — Cooperative Win/Lose — Win/Win #44. Directness: Inferential — Direct High — Low Context
#45. Management:
Control, Delegate, Collaborative #46. Risk Taking:
Fearfully Aversive — Excitedly Embracing #47. Decision Making: Cautious — Bold
Our conative dimension of mind most intimately involves our thoughts-andfeelings. When we analyze the old term "will," we discover two processes within it—intending and attending. Intending speaks to what we want, desire, like, and value. In intending we focus our mind on the object of our desire. In attending we do the directive work at the primary level of awareness as we “pay attention” to the things that we have intended.
Our thinking-and-feeling states are not only made up of representations (the mental or cognitive element) and kinesthetic and somatic sensations of the body (the emotional element), but also our choices.
C What direction do we typically send our brain? C How do we direct our attention of thoughts-feelings?
C How do we experience our intentions and attentions in various life
contexts (i.e., home, relationships, work, career, recreation, etc.)? C What rules have we chosen to live by?
C Have you decided that the world operates by compulsion or desire? C What facets of life do we find most pleasure in?
C How do we go about moving ourselves forward in fulfilling our desired outcomes (goals)?
C How do we relate to choosing?
C How have we chosen to trust or distrust people in choosing to believe them or not?
C How do we attend and choose our frames? C How do we want to focus our attention?
#34. Convincer Demonstration: Number of Times/ Length of Time
Description: The meta-program of Convincer Representation (#19) focuses on theemotional facet of
feeling convinced and so answers the question, How do we need to represent something so we find it convincing? Does it need to look right, sound right, feel right, or make sense?
make our choices, and how we perceive the process of deciding. This brings up other factors and variables in the experience of feeling convinced: How many times it takes us to become convinced (times or repetition)? How long does it take (period of time)? James and Woodsmall (1988); Bagley and Reese (1988).
Elicitation:
C How often does someone have to demonstrate competence before you feel convinced? C How many times do you typically have to see, hear, read, or do something before you feel convinced of your own competency?
How does your convincer (or believability) occur? Does it occur— a) Automatically: You start from the state of being convinced. b) Repetition: Over a number of times: how many times? c) Time
Period: Over a period of time: how long a time? d) Consistently: You are never convinced, you consistently doubt.
Automatically Number of Times Period of Time Never
Identification:
A) Automatic Perceiving: People with an automatic convincer are easy to sell and convince. They
essentially need no convincing. That’s because they assume believability. They not only begin with trust, but they trust people and things, until that trust is proven foolish. With a meta-program of being automatically convinced, they need little evidence, little proof, and little argumentation. Naively they are ready to believe even before the presentation begins. While they may gather some information, they are ready to imagine the rest. The problem here lies in sometimes trusting too much and too quickly.
Bob tells stories of how he operated in this automatic mode of trusting and how it led him to
purchasing products that he didn’t need and didn’t even want. He says that he was easily persuaded to sign up for many Multi-Level Marketing programs. When he eventually had enough, he shifted his meta-program to “Number of Times,” choosing to give himself three to seven times before acting. Such experiences can encourage and empower us to change our meta-programs.
B) Repetition Perceiving: Most people use repetitions of trustworthy actions and communications as
the foundation and basis for trust and believability. They only trust and believe after they have had a certain amount of exposure to information and experience. It then takes so many exposures to the information for it to solidify enough to seem "real" and believable. The specific number of times (e.g., 3, 5, 17, etc.) will be different from person to person, yet some number will be the lower threshold number that has to occur. Prior to that the person will not be persuaded. A number of presentations has to occur. "How many times does it take for you?" When you know, then pace that person’s meta-program by using that many repetitions. Persuasion will then occur as we speak to the person the required number of times. The frightening thought about this is that the majority of people can come to believe almost anything if repeated often enough.
C) Perceiving via a Time Period. Unlike the amount of exposure to an idea (Repetition), others need
for the exposure to occur over a period of time. This quality of “endurance over time” describes the factor that allows an idea to solidify in the mind. For people with a period of time convincer, the
sense of "time" plays the crucial element in their convincer strategy. If an idea, presentation, offer, etc. holds up over time and/or if a certain amount of time passes then their convincer is satisfied. As an example, it has been suggested that we might wait 10% of the person’s period of time criteria (e.g., 6 days if 60 days represents the period of time that it takes them to feel convinced), and then call them up. "I've been so busy since the last time we talked, it seems like it's been two months, do you know what I mean?"
D) Never (or almost never). Some people never accept anything as believable. They consistently
never trust, so with every communication we have to start afresh with no foundation of trust. Others are not as extreme, it’s not that they will never trust, it just takes a lot to convince them. These take the reverse position to the automatic truster, they automatically distrust. They never believe, or are so skeptical, that they almost never. These people seldom give others the benefit of the doubt and so never feel absolutely convinced about anything. Their skill is that of doubting, which is the scientific mindset par excellence. For these people we have to prove something all over again every single time. Alluding to previous experience will not carry much weight.
Hire these skeptics to do quality control work in contexts where we need someone to never believe, but check something out each and every time. These are the people to hire to maintain the airplanes!
Languaging: “I believe you.” “I don’t believe him.” “It’s too soon to believe.” “I need to think about
this some more.” For the never-convinced skeptic, pace your language accordingly, "I know you'll never feel convinced that this is the right time for you to do this, so the only way to know is to get started and find out."
Contexts of Origin: Babies innately trust. They trust to be loved and cared for. They trust to be fed
and bathed. Where there is distrust, there is or has been some sort of failure in the truthworthiness of the providers. This meta-program typically arises from what we learn and model from our parents and other authority figures. It depends on whether they were trustworthy and so can earn trust. Did they come through with what they said, with their promises? It also involves our beliefs about what we can trust and the variables (time, repetition, person, etc.) that enter into the experience.
Self-Analysis:
Conative Convincer: Process:
__ Automatic __ Time Period
Contexts: __ Repetition
__ Never (or almost never)
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: ____________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
Description: There are two general orientations regarding the direction we move when we feel
motivated to take action and do something. Motivational energy involves both a moving toward what we value and want and moving away from what we de-value and want to avoid. In this we move toward the things we value and away from the things that causes us difficulty, pain, and frustration. When we specialize in either one of these fundamental directions, each creates specific talents, tendencies, and predispositions. Conversely, a balance and choice of both makes each side even richer.
Some people have a basic orientation of moving toward their desired values. Others adopt a basic orientation of moving away from undesired things. The first are the values that pull on us while the second are the counter-values that primarily push us away from things. Pull values are the positive benefits that attract us into the future. Push values are the negative values that we do not want. They create a sense of aversion away from undesired experiences.
What is the content of what we move toward or away from? Our values. We move toward or away from what we consider important, valuable, and/or significant. Usually, we have both toward values and away from values. For some, one direction or the other will operate more predominantly. Since all of us move away from some things and toward other things—we all have an internal propulsion system away from “pain” and toward “pleasure.” What do you specifically move away from? What registers neuro-semantically as pain for you? What registers neuro-semantically as pleasure for you? That your “pains” may comprise another’s “pleasures” alerts us to the fact that we have much
plasticity in our nature regarding what we condition in ourselves as pain and pleasure. Woodsmall (1988). Robins (1991), Hall (2002, Propulsion Systems), Hall and Duval (Coaching Change, Meta- Coaching, Vol. I, 2004).
Elicitation:
C What do you want?
C What do you want in a relationship? (Or a job, a promotion, a car, etc.?) C What will having this do for you?
C What do you value of importance about...? C How do you feel about that? (ask several times)
Once we get an answer to these questions (usually in the form of a nominalization, i.e., love, peace, happiness, etc.), we can move up the levels of outcomes or down to the behavioral specifics (Scale, inductive, deductive, #3). If we move upward to a meta-level, we will get the meta-outcomes. Here we ask, “What does that outcome give you that’s even more important?” If we move down, we ask about the specifics that will give us the “complex equivalence” of that value in behavioral terms. This will give us the equivalent of that value empirically. C How will you know when you get love
(peace, happiness, etc.)? C What will that look or sound like to you? Values
Avoidance Approach Moving Away From Moving Toward
Identification:
1) Toward or Approach Perceiving:Those who primarily move toward what they want have a
into their future. They use a go at response style toward goals and values and so they feel motivated to achieve, attain, and obtain. The strength of this is that it enables one to look forward, set goals, and feel motivated when one wants something. While those driven by this pattern can set priorities
regarding desired values, they typically have more difficulty recognizing what to avoid. Because their perspective is mostly future-oriented, they feel most motivated by carrots or incentives, not aversions. Put a carrot out in front of them and they jump. When over-done, one can move toward things without considering what it means in terms of what one inevitably moves away from or the price one may pay for not paying attention.
2) Away from or Avoidance Perceiving: People who move away from what they de-value have a move away from strategy that energizes them to avoid things that they do not want. They operate with
an orientation and focus on what to avoid, rather than what to approach. They primarily use a go
away from response style. They feel motivated to move away from, avoid, steer clear of, and get rid
of aversions. They typically have more difficulty with goals, managing their priorities, and get easily distracted by negative situations.
The strength of the away from perspective is that it enables one to see, recognize, and feel motivated to deal with problems and potential dangers. Those with whom this style predominates feel most motivated by the stick (e.g., threats, negative aversions, pressure). Threats energize them; deadlines get them into action. They are more skilled at solving problems and troubleshooting than moving toward what they want. When over-done, they live their lives by crisis management. Problems and crises can distract them so that they drop what they’re doing to put out the urgent fire. Their
perspective is mostly past-oriented.
3) Balanced perceiving. Each side of this continuum offers particular strengths and talents—the
ability to see possibilities (Toward) and the ability to see and formulate problems when they are still small and manageable (Away From). In the Toward mode we dream, create visions, and design new possibilities. In the Away From mode we detect difficulties and problems, quality control, and plan ahead for possible contingencies.
Languaging: Listen for toward and away from values. "It means respecting each other and taking care
of each other." "It means not fighting and arguing with each other, not feeling bad." We hear goals, desires, dreams, visions, etc. in those who move toward values. We hear avoidances, aversions, de- values, etc. in those who move away from things. People will communicate their values and disvalues in nominalizations (i.e., process words that they have turned into static nouns). Listen for and
distinguish inclusive and exclusive language. Toward language includes (i.e., gain, have, get, attain, achieve) while away from language excludes (i.e., stay clear of, get rid of, stay away from, avoid, and don't need).
In responding to a question like, "What do you want ina good relationship?" those with the toward orientation will say, "I want peace, love, and happiness." Those with an away from orientation will say, "I don't want any fighting or trying to manipulate each other." Those who move toward with some away from will say, "I want us to consider each other's feelings so we don't fight." Those who move away from with some toward will say, "We won't feel hurt by each other because we will have more of a sense of harmony."
To pace in your communications as you negotiate, manage, and relate, talk to the towards person about what you can do that will help himor her achieve outcomes. Mention the carrots, bonuses, and incentives inherent in your plan. With those who move away from, talk about how you can help them avoid dificulties, the problems they can minimize or put off, and the things that won't go wrong. Emphasize how easy it will make their life.
Those who move away from will sort for past assurances and look for security, safety, and
protection. Provide them with a history of evidence inasmuch as they want to be rest assured about their choice as already proven over time. They seek more to solve problems than move toward goals. They don't feel moved by rewards and goals as much as by avoiding problems and pains. Ask, “Have you had enough of that problem yet? Do you need another five years of it before making a change?” Those who move toward values focus on future possibilities. They think and feel primarily in terms of possibilities, opportunities, excitements, passions, dreams, etc. They enjoy the possibilities that lie within open-ended opportunities. They feel attracted to bigger risks for greater potential payoffs. This approach /avoidance perceptual filter enables us to make some distinctions regarding what a person will look for when seeking to purchase something. Avoidance responders want to know what problems the product will take care of. Goal-oriented people will experience the problem-avoidance approach as “negative.” They will want to know how a product will help them attain their goals. Jay Arthur (2002) describes toward and away from people as achievers and problem solvers.
“Achievers move toward opportunity and possibility. They often create the next step in human evolution, processes, or technology. . . . Problem solvers move away from possible pain. They tend to be better at analyzing and solving problems. They can create new things by amplifying the
consequences of not doing it.” (p. 43)