The Evolution of Perceptual Positions

In NLP, the concept of “perceptual positions” was first formulated by John Grinder and Judith DeLozier (1987) as an operational extension of earlier NLP concepts such as “referential index,” “metaposition,” and Gregory Bateson’s idea of “double” and “triple” description.

Origins and Early Concepts

The linguistic concept of “referential indices” (from “The Structure of Magic,” Vol. 1) deals with words that refer to people or objects to which a statement applies. One of the Meta Model procedures, known as the “referential index shift” technique (p. 89), involved a linguistic shift where one pronoun was replaced with another. For example, in a case described by Bandler and Grinder, a woman complained, “My husband doesn’t appreciate me… My husband never smiles at me.” To shift the referential index, she was asked, “When you don’t smile at your husband, does that always mean you don’t appreciate him?” The question was intended to help her shift her perspective to better understand and respond to her own generalization.

The development of metaprogram patterns by Leslie Cameron-Bandler and others in the late 1970s led to a deeper exploration of these phenomena. The earlier concept of referential index shift in the Meta Model was contrasted with the “referential index switch,” which was essentially equivalent to what is now known as the “second position.” The process of “switching the referential index” was seen as a less intense version of “deep trance identification,” where a person identifies with another so strongly that they may lose the ability to distinguish between “self” and “other.”

Another phenomenon studied at the time was the experience of “simultaneous index,” or multiple indices, where a person could take the perspective of several people at once.

Metaposition and Internal Conflict

In “The Structure of Magic,” Vol. 2 (1976), Grinder and Bandler defined the concept of “metaposition” as a primary strategy for resolving internal conflict, understanding interaction dynamics, and responding to one’s own internal processes. As a conflict resolution strategy, the “meta” position involves taking a viewpoint “above” and “between” opposing internal parts or “polarities.” According to Grinder and Bandler:

“A person achieves a metaposition with respect to their polarities (parts) when they have choices in their behavior (consciously or unconsciously) about whether to act as one polarity (part) or the other in a gentle, coordinated way, with neither polarity interrupting the other, and the client expresses both polarities appropriately and congruently.” (p. 70)

Metaposition is more than just a combination of polarities or parts of a conflict. If a client has two polarities (A and B), the metaposition is a representation (C) that “has all the potentials of A and B, as well as Not-A and Not-B, and the rich choices that come from many combinations within and between the polarities.” Rather than turning “black and white” into “gray,” the metaposition allows for the creation of complex and beautiful patterns using both black and white.

Regarding internal conflict, the metaposition creates a position of choice and flexibility toward conflicting polarities. In terms of interaction, the metaposition involves dissociating from the interaction and responding to one’s own behavior in relation to others. The metaposition temporarily places the individual outside the communication loop to gather information as if they are a witness rather than a participant. In this position, one can see, hear, and feel the interaction from the perspective of an interested but neutral observer.

Dissociation and Perceptual Shifts

Another precursor to the development of perceptual positions in NLP was the concept of dissociation. A “dissociated” state is typically defined as being “separated from” or “not associated with” a particular experience. In NLP, an “associated” state means experiencing a situation as if you are living it, seeing through your own eyes, feeling your own body and emotions, hearing with your own ears, and sensing the smells and tastes present at the time. A “dissociated” experience involves observing yourself from the perspective of an outside observer, as if watching your behavior on a movie or video screen.

The concept of dissociation, which entered NLP through Milton Erickson’s hypnotherapeutic work, is often used to help people cope more effectively with difficult or painful situations. Bandler and Grinder adapted Erickson’s use of dissociation, removing the need for hypnosis in some therapeutic techniques. The Visual-Kinesthetic (V/K) dissociation technique in NLP, for example, is a powerful method for helping people deal with phobias, trauma, and stress.

Some of these techniques require multiple dissociations. For example, a person may experience “double” or “triple” dissociation (as used in the V/K dissociation technique). “Double” dissociation involves observing your own actions, often using the metaphor of watching yourself in a movie. In “triple” dissociation, the perspective shifts so that the person is in the position of the projector operator, “seeing themselves seeing themselves.” (While three positions are most commonly used in NLP techniques, it is possible to create dissociation from four, five, or more positions.)

In addition to shifts in visual perspective, dissociated states are characterized by third-person language, such as “he,” “she,” or “that person.” Dissociation is also facilitated by verbal patterns that presuppose distance in time or space, such as “that experience,” “in that place,” or “when I was younger.”

It’s important to note that when a person dissociates from an experience, they are “associating” somewhere else. In fact, the simplest way to dissociate from a particular viewpoint or perceptual position is to associate into another. Thus, the focus of attention in dissociation can be directed away from negative emotions or toward another perceptual position or new perspective. (Dissociation, by the way, should be distinguished from “disassociation.” Dissociation involves moving to or “associating with” another viewpoint, while disassociation involves separating elements of experience without necessarily changing perspective.)

The Three Main Perceptual Positions

In the mid-1980s, Judith DeLozier and John Grinder established the formulation of “first” (self), “second” (other), and “third” (observer) positions. Their concept of perceptual positions arose from rethinking the phenomena described above—referential index shift, referential index switch, metaposition, and multiple dissociations—in light of Gregory Bateson’s idea of “characterological adjectives.” These are words that encode fundamental characteristics of relationships. An important quality of characterological adjectives is that, by defining one part of a relationship, they necessarily imply the other. For example, being “pursued” implies a pursuer; being “defensive” implies some aggression.

Bateson also argued that our experience of “self” is a function (not a thing or “nominalization”) and can expand to include other parts of the world. For example, a race car driver extends their sense of self to include the car, and a blind person extends their sense of self to include their cane. Thus, we can expand our sense of self to include objects, people, or entire systems.

Through the concept of perceptual positions, DeLozier and Grinder attempted to connect Bateson’s idea of “self” as a function and create a consistent description of the communication loop between individuals by defining each position in relation to the other. A “perceptual position” is essentially a particular perspective or point of view from which a person perceives a situation or relationship. The New Code of NLP defines three main positions a person can take in perceiving a specific experience:

• First Position: Perceiving the experience through your own eyes, associated with the “first-person” point of view.
• Second Position: Experiencing as if you are “in the other person’s shoes.”
• Third Position: Stepping aside and perceiving the relationship between yourself and others from the “observer” position.

The concept of a fourth position was later added to describe the entire system or “field of relationships” (in the sense of a collective “we”), synthesizing all three positions.

Characteristics of Each Position

• First Position: You are in your own physical space, in your usual body posture. You use words like “me,” “I,” “myself,” referring to your own feelings, perceptions, and ideas. You experience communication from your own perspective, fully associated with your own body and worldview.
• Second Position: You temporarily take the other person’s perspective, adopting their physical posture and worldview as if you were them. You see, hear, feel, taste, and smell everything from the other person’s point of view. You refer to yourself as “you” and use second-person forms. This is a powerful way to assess your effectiveness in communication.
• Third Position: The “observer” position places you outside the communication loop to gather information as a witness rather than a participant. Your posture is symmetrical and relaxed. You use third-person forms like “he” or “she” when referring to those you observe (including yourself). This position provides valuable information about the balance of behaviors in the loop, which can be brought back to improve your own state and interactions.

Robert Dilts and Todd Epstein (1990, 1991, 1995 & 1996) suggest subtle but important differences between the third position, metaposition, and observer position. The “pure” Third Position is a viewpoint outside the communication loop, including knowledge gathered from being associated in the 1st and 2nd positions. Metaposition is a viewpoint outside the loop with knowledge only from the first position. The Observer Position is outside the loop, where the observer consciously suppresses any beliefs or statements about the 1st or 2nd positions.

The Development of the Fourth Position

The fourth position synthesizes the other three, giving a sense of “being the whole system.” It involves identifying with the system or the relationship itself, characterized by language forms like “we” (first-person plural). The first explicit use of the “fourth perceptual position” occurred in the Meta Mirror procedure (Dilts, 1988, 1990, 1992), developed by Robert Dilts as a result of the “Behavioral Syntax” seminars with John Grinder in 1988.

This procedure was based on taking a position that encompassed and reflected the first, second, and third perceptual positions to help resolve issues arising from judgments made from the third position. In 1989, the concept of the “fourth position” was expanded to the “systemic position,” often referred to as the “company position” in the Meta Leadership Map (Dilts, 1989, 1998), resulting from Dilts’ modeling of effective leaders’ skills and strategies. This position is characterized by the word “we” and involves “identification” with the team, group, or system, creating a “reflective vision of the system” and considering the best interests of the whole system. The fourth position is now often called the “We-Position.”

Group Cohesion and Rapport

Webster’s Dictionary defines “we” as referring to “a group consciously felt by its members.” In his classic work on group dynamics, Kurt Lewin (1939) mentioned the concept of “cohesion” (the sense of “we”) as a key quality of any group. When cohesion is high, members are motivated to participate in group activities and help achieve group goals. This experience gives members a sense of security, identity, and personal significance. The degree of cohesion is usually a function of the overlap of interests and values among group members, the level of communication, and the rapport they can achieve with each other.

The concept of rapport in NLP dates back to 1976. Creating rapport is generally defined as establishing trust, harmony, and cooperation in relationships. “Harmonious understanding,” “agreement,” being “in sync”—these are words commonly used to describe the process or state of rapport. Mirroring posture to create rapport is one of the earliest and best-known NLP techniques, though mirroring alone does not guarantee rapport, as a person may remain in their “first position” without entering the “we” experience.

The idea of rapport in NLP was derived from Milton Erickson’s work. As a hypnotherapist, Erickson created and entered a special state of rapport called “therapeutic trance.” In 1978, a student noticed that when Erickson was leading a client into trance, he himself showed trance characteristics, such as pupil dilation, changes in muscle tone, and breathing. When asked if he entered trance while hypnotizing clients, Erickson replied, “Always.” When the student asked, “Who is hypnotizing whom in this case?” Erickson again replied, “Always,” implying that rapport is a loop of mutual influence and interaction, where each element influences and is influenced by the others.

Spatial Sorting and Psychogeography

The emergence of spatial sorting and psychogeography (the physiological effects of physical location) in NLP (Dilts, 1987, 1990), along with perceptual positions, brought new development to the concepts of perceptual positions, rapport, and the “we” experience. It’s easy to demonstrate that shifting a person’s “psychogeography” during communication with another dramatically changes the perception of the relationship. For example, standing or sitting face-to-face keeps the focus strictly on “I” and “you” perception, while sitting side by side encourages experiencing the situation as partners in a “we” frame.

• Direct Relationship – Conversation or Confrontation – “I” vs. “You”
• Partners – Looking Together in the Same Direction – “We”

Using psychogeography to create a sense of connection with another person, to separate partners’ perceptions, and to operate as a “we” unit is a clear step in both the Meta Mirror and Meta Leadership Map processes.

Aligning at the Company Level and Spiritual Integration

The Logical Level Alignment process (Dilts, 1992) was invented to create a sense of “we” among individuals in a group by finding commonalities at multiple levels of experience. The process emphasizes overlaps in beliefs, values, sense of uniqueness, and “spiritual” perception (defined as “the experience of being part of a larger system that extends beyond us as individuals to our family, community, and global systems; a sense of something beyond our self-concept, values, beliefs, thoughts, actions, or sensations—i.e., who and what else exists in these larger systems of which we are a part”).

The Spiritual Healing process, developed by Dilts and McDonald for the “Tools of the Spirit” program (first held in 1992), combined the state of “spiritual wholeness” as an additional element of the fourth position. “Spiritual wholeness” was defined as “the sense of being part of a greater system than ourselves” (Dilts & McDonald, 1997). This fourth position was used to create “spiritually extended” 1st, 2nd, and 3rd positions. Bringing the power of this fourth position back into the first position gives the sense that others are an “extension” of oneself. Bringing it into the second position gives the experience of being “one with” another person. Adding the fourth position to the third position brings awareness that the interaction between the first and second positions is “part” of a much larger system.

The experience of “we” in the fourth position was also enhanced by research into Somatic Syntax (Dilts & DeLozier, 1993, 1996). Stephen Gilligan’s concept of the relational field, introduced into NLP through the “Love in the Face of Violence” seminars (with Robert Dilts), added further emphasis to the “we” experience.

Other perspectives on the fourth position in NLP include Peter Wrycza and Jan Ardui (1994), who associate it with “witnessing understanding that encompasses and goes beyond all positions,” and Robert McDonald (1998), who links perceptual positions to different “levels of understanding,” arguing that the fourth position is not really a “position” at all, but a result of the interaction between other positions.

In the upcoming “Encyclopedia of Systemic NLP and New Code NLP” (Dilts, DeLozier, and Epstein), the “fourth position” is defined as:

“[A] perceptual position that involves being associated with the whole system or ‘field’ relevant to a particular interaction. It involves experiencing the situation with an awareness of the best interests of the entire system. The fourth position is the ‘we’ position, characterized by first-person plural forms—’We are,’ ‘Us,’ etc. The fourth position is an essential component of wisdom and ecology.”

Although it was not originally included in the group of perceptual positions (first position—self, second position—other, third position—observer), the fourth position is just as fundamental. It is necessary for effective leadership, team building, and group spirit. As the term implies, the fourth position presupposes and encompasses the other three perceptual positions. People unable to reach the fourth position have difficulty manifesting themselves as members of a group or community.

The experience of the fourth position comes from finding deeper factors and characteristics that unite and connect all members of a group or system. This is the basis of what is known as “group mind.” However, the fourth position should be distinguished from simple consensus. Consensus is essentially agreement among individuals. The fourth position comes from a felt sense of “similarity” and identification with all members of the system. It also presupposes that a person has already taken the other three perceptual positions. In functional systems, all members are to some extent able to take and experience the fourth position.

The ability to reach the fourth position greatly facilitates group management and is a key characteristic of visionary leadership. Effective leaders can identify with the entire system they influence. The fourth position is also a key perspective for modeling. For example, it can be especially important when studying and understanding other cultures where individuality or a sense of personal “I” is not emphasized, or where the concept of community or “we” is the norm. On the island of Bali, for example, certain social castes have only four names for all people in the group, essentially meaning “first-born,” “second-born,” “third-born,” and “fourth-born.” If there are more than four children in a family, the fifth child’s name starts again with “first-born.” Thus, names reflect the group or caste, not individuality. Their cultures are organized more around the experience of community than the individual.

Of course, the key point from the NLP perspective is not so much in defining or describing the fourth position or “we-position” (the map is not the territory, after all), but in the process by which people can be led to the experience being referenced.

Generative NLP Process: Creating the “We-Field”

The following “Generative NLP” process was first developed by Robert Dilts (GTC, London, 1998). Later improvements were added by him and Robert McDonald for the “Group Mind, Team Spirit” seminar. The goal of this process is to share and enhance resourceful states by exploring them from different perceptual positions. The process gives an experience of the fourth position through co-creating a “felt sense of similarity” between people, explicitly derived from being in the other three perceptual positions. The process combines principles of spatial sorting, psychogeography, and Somatic Syntax.

Creating the “We-Field”: Developing a Shared Resource (“We-Resource”) Through Somatic Syntax

1. Identify a recent resourceful experience. Associate into your own first position (seeing through your own eyes, feeling your own emotions, and hearing the world around you), and explore the movement associated with this resourceful feeling and experience.
2. Standing face-to-face with your partner, demonstrate this movement to them and, while remaining in your first position, observe your partner’s movement. From your own perspective, imitate your partner’s movement.
3. Then switch places and “step into your partner’s shoes” (enter the second position). Perform your partner’s movement “as if” you really were that person. Notice how your experience of the movement differs.
4. Enter the observer position (third position), and notice the similarities and differences between your partner’s movement and resource and your own.
5. Return to your first position. Turn so that you and your partner are standing side by side. Begin performing your original resourceful movement again. At the same time, your partner should begin their movement. Together, gradually add to your movements until you find a common movement that blends your two resource states and movements into the fourth position, or “we-field,” representing your integration as a pair.
6. As a pair, find another pair and repeat the same procedure, this time using the movement you created together. Then repeat again in a group of four, and so on, until you find a common movement with the whole group.

Another variation for a group (e.g., of 7 people) is for each participant to perform their resourceful movement in turn. While one person does their movement, the rest of the group enters the “second position,” doing the movement themselves. When all group members have demonstrated their movements, they start again individually, gradually changing and blending them into a “group resource” movement.

This procedure demonstrates the generative aspects of perceptual positions (especially the fourth position), maintaining Bateson’s idea of characterological adjectives and the creation of a “greater mind” as a function of interactions between two or more people. Bateson gives the example of a dog and a gibbon playing together, creating activities that are not purely “dog” or “gibbon” behavior, but “dog-gibbon” behavior. The fourth “dog-gibbon” position naturally arises from their interaction. Thus, such a fourth position is, in Bateson’s terms, more of a “constant” in the interaction than a kind of “superior” understanding.