Key Conditions for Effective Language Patterns

Language patterns are verbal reframings aimed at changing beliefs. The idea that you can say a phrase and instantly change someone’s belief (opinion, conviction, etc.) sounds very appealing. But, of course, it’s not that simple. For a language pattern to work, several conditions must be met. Even if you meet all these conditions, it doesn’t guarantee success—it just increases the likelihood. However, if you don’t meet them, the language pattern definitely won’t work.

Rapport

Language patterns only work when there is rapport.

We encounter rapport all the time—it’s the state that arises during successful communication. Rapport appears when people start acting as a single system. A good example is partner dancing, where instead of two dancers, there is a “couple” moving as one. This doesn’t mean people copy each other. To dance Latin or sports rock-n-roll well, you need good coordination, but each partner still has their own movements.

For someone to respond to your words instead of rejecting them outright, you need a state of rapport—both verbal and nonverbal. Without it, a language pattern is unlikely to work. With rapport, the chances are much higher.

Matching the Map

When constructing a language pattern, it’s important to match the person’s map of the world.

Essentially, matching the map means aligning with the person’s set of opinions. Let’s look at this in more detail.

For example, if you refer to a famous person (as in the “Counterexample” or “Worldview” language patterns), you need to be sure that this person is known and viewed positively by your listener. Someone might see Peter the Great as a cruel despot, Napoleon as a failure, Houdini as a mere trickster, or even believe Lao Tzu never existed.

If you reference an event, the client should have some idea about it. For instance, you mention Catherine the Great, but all they remember is that she was some kind of empress—maybe in Russia, the UK, or Ancient Rome, or perhaps she’s just a fairy tale character to them. Or you quote a movie (“Gentlemen of Fortune,” “Some Like It Hot,” “Kin-dza-dza,” “Pulp Fiction”), but they haven’t seen it or it didn’t make an impression. They might know nothing about cryptocurrencies, genetic engineering, the World Cup, the latest music hits, or certain Telegram channels or websites. They might not care about celebrity life at all, or even know the word “celebrity.”

If you refer to someone’s personal experience, it should be relevant to the topic.

• Client: “If something is cheap, it means it’s low quality.”
• You: “Surely you’ve bought at least one cheap but high-quality item in your life?”
• Client: “Everything cheap I’ve bought turned out to be junk.”

This is why language patterns work better when constructed after gathering information.

Values

Important elements of the map are values (and anti-values). It’s best to identify or at least reasonably assume them based on what the client says.

Values are things important to us that we want in our lives. In language, a value is usually expressed as a nominalization or a phrase with a nominalization: true love, happiness, reliability, family security, confidence in the future, career, and so on.

Anti-values are important things we don’t want: illness, grief, anger, true meanness, betrayal. They influence our lives just as much, but in the opposite direction—we strive toward values and away from anti-values.

People may use different words for the same (anti-)values. What one calls “recognition,” another might call “fame” or “laurels,” though the meaning is the same.

When constructing language patterns, you’ll constantly refer to a person’s (anti-)values, either explicitly or implicitly. For example, in the “Hierarchy of Criteria” pattern, you do this directly:

• Client: “You shouldn’t change your opinion—people will stop respecting you.”
• You: “It’s more important to think about self-respect than about the respect of others.”

Here, you take the value “respect” from the belief and contrast it with “self-respect.”

Often, you’ll do this implicitly, assuming a (anti-)value from the client’s words and relying on another (anti-)value in your pattern.

• Client: “I don’t have any special talents or abilities that make me stand out.”
• You: “If everyone thought that way, no one would ever achieve anything.”

Here, you rely on the value of “achievement,” assuming it’s important to the client.

• Client: “I can’t afford to quit my job.”
• You: “You haven’t gotten revenge on your coworkers for last year yet?” (implying “revenge” is an anti-value for the client and assuming they won’t like the idea)
• Client: “A wife should be obedient.”
• You: “Do you like women with no will of their own?” (implying the man is insecure)
• Client: “She should take care of me.”
• You: “Maybe it’s better to think about how you can become truly independent?” (value: “being independent”)

Identifying the Belief

To construct a language pattern, you first need to identify the belief in the speech (or text).

In most language pattern examples, the belief is stated and then addressed. But people don’t always state their beliefs directly; you often have to extract or infer them. There will be exercises on how to do this. It also helps to understand how beliefs are structured.

Matching Metaprograms

When constructing language patterns, it’s useful to match the client’s “rigid” metaprograms—those in which the person is not very flexible, such as only “Away From” motivation or only internal reference.

If you don’t match these, even the most brilliantly constructed language pattern is likely to be rejected.

For example, the “world sorting” metaprogram determines a person’s preferred focus: people, things, process, time, place, values. When constructing language patterns, consider their preferred “sorting gate” and focus on changing the “size” along those lines.

• Client: “Only a person with a car commands respect.”
• You: “Do you know people who are respected even if they don’t have a car?” [people]
• You: “Of course, if you have a yacht, people won’t respect you as much.” [things, provocative format]
• You: “Even if he rented the car for just an hour?” [time]
• You: “Are you saying that everywhere on Earth—from Paris to Tokyo—only having a car earns respect?” [place]
• You: “So, is a pile of metal more important to you than a person?” [values]

Thinking styles—generalization, specification, analogy—are directly associated with influence methods.

• Client: “Only a person with a car commands respect.”
• You: “Do absolutely all people with cars command respect?” [generalization]
• You: “How much respect does someone with a 1984 Zaporozhets get?” [specification]
• You: “In the 18th century, did only people with carts command respect?” [analogy]

For the “general” metaprogram, short, broad statements work better; for “specific”, details and clarifications are preferred.

• Client: “Only a person with a car commands respect.”
• You: “So you’re saying the only criterion for respect is having a car?” [general]
• You: “Imagine a person: rude, stupid, greedy, a drunk, always broke, but he has some old vehicle. And another person: owns a business, smart, educated, good conversationalist, but no car—he thinks it’s a waste of money and takes a taxi when needed. Which one commands more respect?” [specific]

The “comparison focus” metaprogram—whether a person pays more attention to similarities or differences. Focus on similarities: “this is like…” or on differences: “this is completely different…”

• Client: “I’m weak-willed, so I can’t quit smoking.”
• You: “Like most people, you justify your fear of change by saying you lack willpower.” [similarity]
• You: “Was there ever a time in your life when you showed persistence?” [difference]

“Toward or Away From” motivation: If a person is motivated “Away From,” show the downsides of the old belief; if “Toward,” show the benefits of the new one.

• Client: “I’m weak-willed, so I can’t quit smoking.”
• You: “That’s a good way to justify an early death.” [Away From]
• You: “The idea that you can control your life will benefit you more.” [Toward]

“Active vs. Reflective”: For active people, use concrete suggestions and active verbs; for reflective people, use the subjunctive mood.

• Client: “Only a person with a car commands respect.”
• You: “Then go buy yourself a car—if that’s the only way to earn respect.” [active]
• You: “Maybe if you think about it, you’ll find plenty of people who are respected without having a car.” [reflective]

For external reference, offer options like “I’m sure,” “Kant wrote” (be sure to reference someone authoritative for the client):

• Client: “I’m weak-willed, so I can’t quit smoking.”
• You: “I know many people who quit smoking just by reading Allen Carr’s ‘The Easy Way to Stop Smoking.’ Most of them weren’t particularly strong-willed.” [external reference—people]

For external reference to situation, use more impersonal and analytical descriptions:

• You: “All major thinkers of antiquity claimed that anyone can change for the better, no matter who they are.” [external reference—situation]

For internal reference, frame the situation as if the client is evaluating it themselves:

• You: “What’s more important to you: indulging your own laziness or making your life the way you want it?” [internal reference]

Pattern Interrupt

Language patterns are a type of reframing. And reframing only works if there’s a pattern interrupt—a shock, an insight, a truly unexpected perspective on the situation.

If you offer someone a different perspective, but it’s familiar to them, their belief won’t change. They’ve heard it before, thought about it, and it didn’t work for them. But if it’s a completely unexpected twist or a dramatic demonstration, that’s a different story.

In many books, movies, and parables, the main character isn’t just told the truth—they’re put in a situation that changes their worldview, usually through an unexpected turn of events.

So, it’s not enough to come up with a language pattern—you need to make sure this new perspective is truly unexpected for the person and present it in a way that shocks them in some way.

That’s why it sometimes takes a long and careful conversation to lead someone to the right reframing or language pattern, for example, by clarifying their current worldview and specifying events.

Many language patterns only work for this particular person, at this particular moment, and after this particular conversation. The same phrase might have no effect on someone else.