and determine how we experience and perceive reality. Among these semantic frames are: our sense of self as a person, our sense of "self" in terms of our efficacy, confidence, skill, and our self-
definition that we create via our experiences, etc.
None of us ever leave home without our “self” frames. These are the frames which formulate our higher meta-programs. Because we take these metaconstructions with us everywhere we go and use them as perceptual filters, they significantly color the world we live in. This enables us to use almost every experience, conversation, and interaction to both express our “self” and be influenced as a “self.” Developmentally, the semantics of self are so central and primary that we have designated this as the first content matrix in the Matrix Model.1 What follows are many different facets of the
mappings that we make about our self.
#48. Self-Experience:
Mind, Emotion, Will, Body, Role/ Position, Spirit, Dis-Identified
Description: This higher meta-program deals with how we experience ourselves in terms of our self-
identity. We differ in our concept of "self" and the factors that we use and factor into our self-
definition. How do you define yourself? What facets of yourself play a central role in the self out of which you come—and the self that you use at the meta-meta level?
We can take any one of these facets of self, or a combination of them, or none of them, and
conceptually define ourselves in terms of them. Korzybski said that when we identify with something, we set up an identification and treat that thing or process as equal to or the same as our label.
Korzybski (1933).
Elicitation:
C What experiences do you identify with and use to create some of your self-definition?
C As you think about your thoughts, emotions, will, body, roles, and positions that you experience in life, which of these facets seems the most important, real, or valid?
C Do you think of yourself primarily as a thinker, as an emotional person, or a chooser? Do you see yourself in terms of your physical looks or body, in terms of your roles and positions, or in some other fashion?
C How do you define yourself? Mind Body Emotions Will Roles Dis-Identified
Identification:
1) Thinking: The more we use our thinking and cognitive powers and the more they successfully
enable us to cope with life and master specific areas of it, the more likely we are to identify as a thinker.
2) Feelings: The more we step into an experience and associate with it, the more likely we will use
the feelings of that experience to define ourselves. We will then probably identify ourselves as a “feeler.”
3) Choosing: The more we sort for choice as our main power, the primary factor in our
consciousness, the more likely we identify ourselves as a “chooser.” This sets us up for the strong- will filter of the Self-Instruction meta-program (#49).
4) Etc. We could even define ourselves primarily by our jobs, roles, experiences, degrees,
relationships, body, health, ill-health, disease, political party, religious beliefs, ethic group, etc.
Languaging: Listen for the facet of experience that seems to play the largest role in a person’s self-
definition. Does the person identify him or herself with that facet? To what degree and to what extent? Does that self-definition control the person?
Contexts of Origin: As a high-level concept about one's self-definition, this metaprogram develops
from the first level meta-programs. The place where we experience pleasure and/or pain is also the place where we create our constructs. The languaging we receive from significant people also plays a critical role. What did others say that entered into the formulation? How well did the person screen it out or identify with it? With whom did a person identify or dis-identify?
Self-Analysis:
__ Mind/ Emotion/ Will/ Body/ Role/ Position/ Spirit / Dis-identification Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level
__ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#49. Self-Instruction: Compliant — Strong-Will
Description: This meta-program relates to how we experience ourselves when face-to-face with
someone telling us something, giving us instructions, or even with the principle of being told
something. How do you experience such? Do you easily comply or do you naturally resist? How do you perceive and experience compliance or non-compliance to rules? How do you relate and respond when someone provides you information? How do you respond when someone gives you mandates, orders, or instructions? Do you have a natural tendency to comply, to question, or to resist? Imagine a continuum with extremes of complying and resisting. This gives us a meta-program relating to our style of "being told" something. Dobson (1970) Hall (1987, 1990).
Elicitation:
C Can you be told something? Can someone tell you what to do? C How do you think and feel when you receive instructions? C How well can you give yourself orders and carry them out without a lot of internal resistance?
C Do you think of yourself as compliant, that you easily go along with the choices of others? Compliant Balanced Strong-Willed Easily Complies and submits to orders Resists orders, rules, commands
Identification:
1) Compliant: A compliant person responds immediately and automatically by complying in a
pliable, receptive, open, and sometimes, in a sensitive way. The compliant person will experience much kinder/gentler emotions, even in contexts where someone truly imposes their will upon them. Complying doesn’t carry much semantic significance, it only means going along, following the rules, being a team player, being “a good boy,” etc.
2) Strong-willed: Those who are strong-willed have a difficult time "being told” things. When
someone uses any kind of communication that tells (i.e., orders, instructs, informs, lectures, gives advices, etc.), the strong-willed will have an almost immediate and automatic response to resist that information. They do not like "being told." For the strong-willed, telling is semantically loaded. Various beliefs interfere with the reception of information. A strong-willed person typically reads "telling" as "control," "manipulation," "memory of a trauma of some intrusive person," "insult," etc. The strong-willed will experience lots of emotions of "resistance"—primarily dislike and aversion. They will "feel" putupon, forced, controlled, manipulated, etc.
Identify these patterns by simply noticing whether, and to what extent, a person bristles in a context where someone tells, orders, demands, or forces. In this "temperamental" factor, people fall along a continuum between extremely compliant to extremely strong-willed. Most of us lie somewhere in the middle.
Reg Reynolds, a Neuro-Semantic trainer and Meta-Coach noticed this compliance versus non- compliance filter.
“While in Australia, several of the South Africans mentioned how
‘obedient’ the Australians were to the rules, especially compared to them. We noted how they would patiently wait at traffic lights for the Green Man before crossing, even when there was little traffic. And at the training in Sydney, there was the time when one of us pulled up a chair to put up some flip charts and one of the staff berated us because it was unsafe and against the rules.”
Reg noted that “most of us South Africans would not even hesitate to break these rules.” That’s when a discussion broke out about whether this could be a contributing factor for the high crime rate in South Africa. Perhaps when people live in a country suffering from large problems (crime, AIDS, unemployment, etc.) compliance with minor issues becomes much less important.
Languaging: Linguistic markers for the strong-willed by temperament: "Why do I have to?" "I hate it
when people tell me what to do." "I have a problem with authority figures." "I'm not going to jump through your hoops." Linguistic markers for the compliant: "Sure." "Whatever you say." "How high do you want me to jump?" To pace and communicate with a strong-willed person, avoid all direct frontal
telling styles. Set it in mind to not tell that person anything. Instead, replace telling with suggesting,
hinting, prodding, planting idea seeds, and playfully teasing. Use indirect and covert communication skills. On the other hand, to pace and communicate a compliant person, just express your thoughts directly and straight-forwardly.
Contexts of Origin: Those strong-willed by temperament will typically have an innate disposition
choice and will. To preclude their choice feels like a violation of their sense of self. Those strong- willed by trauma experience boundary intrusions once too much, reach a threshold, and make a
decision to "not be told." Those strong-willed by belief have simply made up their mind about this or that subject and have "closed the store."
Self-Analysis:
__ Compliant / Strong-willed / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: __________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
__ Strong-willed by: __ Temper __ Trauma __ Belief
#50. Self-Confidence: Low — High
Description: Self-confidence refers to our sense of competence regarding our feelings of capacity,
ability, experience, and our pride that we can do certain things with skill and ability. We have faith (fidence) with (con) ourselves. This makes self-confidence conditional; the confidence is relative to our skills and competence. Feeling confident, without the skills to back it up, creates a hollow
foolishness. Healthy self-confidence arises from our experiences (positive and negative), training, beliefs, relationships, etc. In this, self-confidence differs radically from self-esteem. Self-confidence relates to what we can do, to our actions, skills, and behaviors. Self-confidence relates to human
doing and behavior. The concept of self-esteem (Self-Esteem, #51) relates to what we are as human
beings, to being and being-ness.
At the heart of self-confidence is our faith in what we can do, in our abilities and skills. It refers to more of an emotional and experiential factor of self, whereas self-esteem refers to our mental
appraisal of rating our self as a person or human being. Self-confidence addresses our strengths and weaknesses, what we can and cannot do. Hall (2000 Meta-States, Dragon Slaying).
Elicitation:
C Make a list of the things that you can do well, and that you know, without a doubt, you can do well and may even take pride in your ability to do them skillfully. How many are you able to list?
C How confident do you feel about these skills on your list?
C How have you generalized from these specific self-confidences to your overall sense of self- confidence?
C What is it like for you to acknowledge the lack of self-confidence in a given area or skill?
C When you have the competence of a given skill, are you able to access and accept those feelings of confidence?
Low Confidence in skills and self High
Identification:
1) Low self-confidence: Those who filter things pessimistically (Scenario Type, Pessimistic meta-
skills, talents, and aptitudes. In low self-confidence, a person may focus only on the things that he or she cannot do well and feel low confidence about almost everything. Those who seek to achieve their goals via the perfectionistic style (Goal Striving meta-program, Perfectionism, #40) can also create an overall sense of low self-confidence. 2) High self-confidence: Everybody who lives a fairly normal life will have lots of things that he or she can do with confidence, from the simple things like making one's bed, cooking a meal, going to work, dressing, to the more complex, playing an
instrument, doing complicated math, fixing an automobile, typing, programming a computer, etc. To experience high self-confidence, we have to let things count and feel good about what we can do. We can acknowledge such in the presence of others.
Those with a healthy dose of self-confidence express their confidence in how they walk, talk, and hold themselves. This leads to self-efficacy which is the ability to trust oneself to learn and figure out, other things that we have yet to learn. Selfefficacy refers to our sense of effectiveness in using our basic response-powers (thinking, emoting, speaking, and actions) as we deal with the world. Those who over-do the self-confidencing may exaggerate it to the point of foolishness so that they present themselves as a know-it-all.
Languaging: Those lacking self-confidence will feel unsure, indecisive, and confused. They will talk
about their doubts, questions, and "not knowing."
Contexts of Origin: Our feelings of trust in our skills develop from experiences in life. Taking on too
much too quickly can undermine the developmental process of learning and feeling good about developing skills. Too much criticism, and too harsh of criticism too early, can also knock the spirit and motivation out of a person. Modeling by significant persons about how to self-validate one's skills also positively affects this meta-program.
Self-Analysis:
__ Low Self-Confidence / High Self-Confidence / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Self-Confidences in what:
__ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#51. Self-Esteem:
Low conditional — High Unconditional
Description: One of our most basic awareness deals with our sense of self. Our images, concepts,
ideas, verbalizations, and definitions of our self pinpoints the core area from which we think, process, and perceive. Because this abstract concept of self occurs above our usual awareness, it operates outside of awareness, making it more difficult to access.
When we confuse, mix and fail to distinguish between these conceptual facets of "self," we create identity confusions that unnecessarily complicate our sense of self. Hall (1991, 1995, 1996), Nathanel Brandon (1969).
Elicitation:
C Do you think of your value as a person as conditional or unconditional? C When you esteem yourself as valuable, worthwhile, having dignity, etc.,
do you based it upon something you do, have, or possess, or do you base it upon a given (i.e., your inherent humanity, made in God's image and likeness, etc.)?
C How solid or weak is your personal sense of your innate worth and dignity? C How easily can you say, “I am lovable, I am precious.”?
Low High Conditional Unconditional
Identification:
1) Unconditional: Self-esteem refers to our sense ofworth (i.e., esteem, appraisal of value, dignity)
and how we view ourselves as human beings. This esteem falls along a continuum between extremely worthless to extremely valuable, from low to high self-esteem. One may make this evaluation or
appraisal of value based on conditional factors or upon unconditional factors. In either case, one's esteeming or not-esteeming of one's being or personhood arises from one's belief about human beings, human worth, and one’s own personal worth.
2) Conditional: When we believe that we have to earn the right to be worthy, have dignity, and
esteem ourselves highly, we make self-esteem conditional upon various factors. Because self-
confidence is conditional on our skills and abilities, we can easily confuse self-confidence and self- esteem and put self-esteem on a conditional foundation.
When we suffer from low self-esteem and try to build our mental self-appraisal as a person upon the foundation of our competencies—we link our self-esteeming to temporal conditions. This puts us on a treadmill of achievement, and reflects the belief, "I will become okay as a person or human being if I achieve enough, accomplish enough, etc. or when I do."
The problem of thinking that we have to become a “somebody” is that it posits human worth and dignity conditionally upon external things. This leaves us unable to ever feel confident. With that construction, we may lose the right within ourselves to esteem ourselves of value and dignity, which then sets us up for states of self-contempt and/or egotism, as well as the idea that people, as human beings, must earn the right to treat oneself as valuable and inherently worthwhile. All of this confuses person with behavior. By contrast, to posit our self-value as a given enables us to think-and-feel in a self-forgetful and unpretentious way. It creates a healthy center of value and dignity from which to live and act.
Language: Listen for statements of conditionality or unconditionality, for gauging words of degree in
one’s sense of worth and dignity (low self-esteem). Listen for how a person thinks-feels about his or her self as a person and as a doer (human being/ human doing). Do you hear conditional factors? Does the esteem of the self go up and down? To pace, appeal to the person’s inherent and innate self value and dignity to reinforce the person who operates from unconditional selfesteem. Appeal to the factor/s that will expand and provide a richer and more resourceful experience.
highly esteeming ourselves, the cognitive problems of emotionalizing and personalizing are likely to arise. Then we fall into thinking patterns of emotionalizing and personalizing, which weakens one’s sense of personal value and boundaries. We are then likely to interpret the words, behaviors and actions of others as insulting, or taking away our value and lovability.
Contexts of Origin: This semantic meta-program arises from the cultures in which we grow up. The
languaging that we receive from parents plays an especially crucial role in the experience of conditional or unconditional self-valuing. Almost everybody receives an unmeasurable amount of conditional self-worthing via their experiences in school, sports, life with peers, etc. Almost any hurt or trauma experience can undermine our ability to esteem our self of unconditional value, worth, dignity, lovability, etc.
Self-Analysis:
Conditional Self-Esteeming / Unconditional Self-Esteeming Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level
(if conditional) __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: ________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#52. Self-Integrity: Conflicted Incongruity — Harmonious Integration
Description: How do we evaluate our ability to live up to our values? How do we think about our
ideals, and especially our ideal self, and then evaluate how well, or how poorly, we live up to those ideals? This awareness generates within us a sense of self-integration, or its lack. This involves feeling conflicted and incongruous with our highest self. Erickson (1959, 1968), Maslow (1954). Cattell (1989) says that this factor in personality works "co-extensively with Erickson's sense of identity" and that it
"... grows out of the recognition that one's attachment, values, and beliefs tend to endure over time. It observes how well one is living up to personal ideals. Failing to live up to personal ideals results in selfdegradation, shame, or anxiety." (p. 278)
Elicitation:
C How well or how poorly do you live up to your ideals? C How well do you actualize your ideal self?