NLP: The Principle of Positive Intention

One of the most important and often misunderstood (and therefore controversial) principles in NLP is the principle of positive intention. This principle states that, on some level, every behavior has (or once had) a “positive intention.” In other words, every behavior serves (or served) a “positive purpose.”

For example, the positive intention behind “aggressive” behavior is often protection. The positive intention or purpose of “fear” is usually the desire for safety. The positive goal of “anger” can be to set (or maintain) boundaries. “Hatred” may have the positive goal of motivating a person to take action. The positive intentions behind something like “resistance to change” could include a range of outcomes, such as wanting to honor, respect, and cherish the past, the need to protect oneself by sticking with what is familiar, or trying to hold on to positive things from the past, and so on.

Even physical symptoms can serve a positive purpose. NLP views symptoms, including physical ones, as messages that something is not functioning properly. Physical symptoms often signal to people that there is some kind of imbalance. Sometimes, physical symptoms are even a sign that something is healing.

Sometimes, a problematic behavior or symptom can serve multiple positive intentions. I have worked with people who wanted to quit smoking, for example, and discovered that smoking served many positive intentions. They smoked in the morning to “wake up.” They smoked during the day to “reduce stress,” “focus,” and—paradoxically—“remember how to breathe.” They smoked at night to “relax.” Often, smoking helped to “wrap up” or blur negative emotions. Perhaps most importantly, smoking was something they did “for themselves,” and it was a source of pleasure in their lives.

Separating Intention from Behavior

Another basic NLP principle, closely related to positive intention, is the usefulness of separating the “goal” from the “behavior”—that is, separating the positive intention, function, or belief (what produces the behavior) from the behavior itself. In other words, it is more respectful, ecological, and productive to respond to the “deep structure” rather than the surface expression of problematic behavior. The result of combining this principle with the principle of positive intention is that, to change behavior or establish achievable alternatives, the new choice must somehow satisfy the positive goal of the previous behavior. When the positive intentions or goals of a problematic state or symptom are not met, even “normal” or “desired” behaviors can ironically produce the same problematic or pathological results. For example, a person who tries to stop being aggressive but has no other way to protect themselves simply trades one set of problems for another. Quitting smoking without finding alternatives for all the important goals it served can lead to serious new problems.

Following another basic NLP principle—pacing and leading—effective change first involves joining, by recognizing the positive intention behind existing behavior, and then leading, by helping the individual expand their map of the world to find more appropriate choices for successfully achieving those positive intentions. These choices should allow the person to maintain the positive intention or goal in different ways. This is exactly what various NLP “reframing” techniques aim to accomplish.

Why People Dislike the Principle of Positive Intention

One might say that the principle of positive intention—and the approach to change described above—seems natural and effective. Nevertheless, this principle has generated much criticism and ridicule, even among some members of the NLP community—from the perception that it is more theoretical and philosophical than practical, to the belief that it is outright dangerous.

The concept of “positive intention” is more philosophical than scientific. It cannot be proven.

In reality, the principle of positive intention did not come from religion or romantic idealism, but rather from a scientific discipline—systems theory. The fundamental premise of the principle of positive intention is that systems (especially self-organizing or “cybernetic” systems) move toward adaptation. That is, there is a built-in tendency to optimize certain important elements in the system or to keep the system in balance. Thus, the ultimate goal of all actions, responses, or behaviors within a system is “adaptation,” or the ultimate goal that was adaptive and provided the context in which these behaviors were originally established.

It is true that you cannot objectively “test” whether there really is a positive intention behind a specific behavior; therefore, it is considered a “presupposition.” It is something that is assumed, not proven. It’s similar to how you cannot “prove” that “the map is not the territory” or that “there is no single correct map of the world.” It is part of the basic “epistemology” of NLP—the core beliefs on which this model is based.

NLP principles and presuppositions are like the fundamental concepts of Euclidean geometry. For example, Euclid built his geometry on the concept of a “point.” A point is defined as “an object that has position but no other properties”—it has no size, mass, color, or shape. Of course, it is impossible to prove that a point truly has no size, mass, color, etc. However, if you apply this presupposition along with some others, you can build an entire system of geometry. The conclusions of this system can then be proven, based on its fundamental but unprovable concepts. It’s important to understand that you don’t have to accept Euclid’s assumptions about a point to create geometry. There are other geometries based on different presuppositions. For example, MIT mathematician Seymour Papert (1980) built his fascinating “turtle geometry” for children, replacing the concept of a “point” with a “turtle”; a “turtle” is an object that has position and direction. Thus, accepting the principle of “positive intention” is ultimately an act of faith. And in many cases, the concept of positive intention may be the “magical” core of NLP. If we accept that there is a positive intention behind every behavior, we will find or create it, rather than waiting for proof that such intentions exist.

If People Have Positive Intentions, Why Do They Do Bad Things?

The common saying that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” suggests that good intentions do not guarantee good behavior. People with good intentions do bad things because they have a limited map of the world. Problems arise when a person’s map of the world, even with good intentions, offers only a few choices for satisfying those intentions.

This is why it is so important to discuss the principle of positive intention in relation to other NLP principles. Isolated from other presuppositions and NLP techniques, the principle of positive intention would indeed be naive idealism. Without NLP mastery, change techniques, thinking tools, communication rules, etc., it doesn’t matter whether someone has a positive intention or not, because we would be powerless to direct their attention to new behaviors. As Einstein pointed out: “You cannot solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that created it.” The principle of positive intention must be combined with great creativity and problem-solving skills.

It’s also important to remember that people can have a positive intention only for the specific part of the overall system they know or identify with. Thus, an individual who consciously and “purposefully” does something harmful to others will often have a positive intention for themselves, which does not include others. In fact, the concept of “negative intention” may be based on this type of experience.

The positive intention behind believing in negative intention and rejecting the concept of “positive intention” is, undoubtedly, “protection.” People who deny the concept of positive intention often fear being, or appearing, “naive.” They also often feel powerless to change anything. Without mastery of the relevant NLP skills, people simply stop, feeling that “If they really had positive intentions, they would have changed by now.”

It is important, however, not to confuse the idea that people are motivated by “positive intention” with the idea that people can always remember the “best interests” of others or the rest of the system. The fact that others have positive intentions does not automatically create their wisdom or ability to act altruistically—this is a result of reasoning, skill, and their map of the world. Adolf Hitler had a very positive intention—for the part of the system he identified with.

A drunk who robs and possibly even kills others to get money has a positive intention for himself, but does not identify with the victim. Europeans who killed Native Americans and their families to protect their own families had a positive intention, but limited choices. In their map of the world, “red devils” were not people. Native Americans who killed Europeans and their families to protect their hunting grounds also had a very positive intention, but limited choices. They all lacked the skills for effective communication with each other, and their maps of the world did not allow them to understand and manage the cultural differences between them.

Does Accepting Positive Intention Mean Approving of All Behavior?

The fact that an action or symptom may have a positive intention behind it does not justify the behavior or make it acceptable or “OK.” It is preferable to think of the principle of positive intention as a requirement for being able to consistently change behavior or resolve a symptom or resistance. The principle of positive intention is more about “change,” “healing,” or “ecology” than about “morality” or “legal rights.” It is more future-oriented than past-oriented. The principle of positive intention simply states that healing or “associative correction” involves adding new choices to a person’s model of the world. These new choices must satisfy the positive intention or goal that the individual (consciously or unconsciously) is trying to achieve, but without the negative or pathological consequences of the problematic behavior or symptom.

But I Can’t Find a Positive Goal in Some Behaviors

Positive intentions are not always conscious or obvious. Because we don’t usually think in terms of positive intentions, it can sometimes be difficult to find them right away, and so we may misinterpret behavior or symptoms. But if we look deeply enough, they are there.

Sometimes the intention or “deep structure” has long since faded from the surface level of the behavior. In these cases, the relationship between intention and behavior may seem paradoxical. For example, I have worked with suicidal people whose positive intention was “to find peace.” Parents sometimes physically punished or scolded their children “to show them they love them.” The mystery of the seemingly paradoxical relationship between positive intention and final behavior lies in past events and the model of the world in which these relationships were formed.

Another conclusion from combining the principle of positive intention with other NLP presuppositions is that any behavior—no matter how “evil” or “bad” it seems—was or is the best choice available to the person at that moment in their model of the world. That is, any behavior was or is perceived as necessary or appropriate (from the actor’s point of view) in the context in which it was established. Often, however, the positive intention for which the behavior was established is no longer actually served by the behavior. For example, the positive intention of “revenge” was originally the “right step” to try to heal others. Instead, it creates endless and escalating hostility (like the Hatfields and McCoys). To truly heal the situation, it is necessary to break the cycle, to understand that the behavior must be different from the one that creates the problem.

It is important to remember that although the situation in which the problematic response was established may now be gone, its positive intention or the goal it pursued remains, and may still be strong and important enough to recognize or address.

What If I Can’t Find Any Positive Intention in the Past?

In some situations, the positive function of a symptom or behavior is not part of the original circumstance, but was established later as a secondary gain. For example, a person does not intend to become physically ill, but receives a lot of attention and help from others when they become sick. This attention or help, as a positive, provided by the illness, can become a secondary gain—highlighting areas of imbalance in the person’s “normal” life that need attention. If these are not addressed properly, the person may come to enjoy repeating relapses.

But When I Offer People Really Good Alternatives, They Don’t Always Accept Them

It’s important to remember at this point that there are subtle but significant differences between an “alternative” and a “choice.” An “alternative” is outside the person. A “choice” is an alternative that becomes part of the person’s map. A person may be given many options or alternatives, but not have a real choice. Choice involves the ability and contextual cues that help a person internally select the most appropriate options.

It is also considered important in NLP that a person has more than one alternative besides the symptom or problematic response. In NLP, it is said that “One choice is no choice. Two choices is a dilemma. But even that is not a choice until a person has three possibilities they can genuinely choose from.”

What About When Someone Admits They Have Other Choices, But Still Does the Same Things?

What often confuses people about the principle of positive intention is that it seems like a person “should know better.” They should have the reason or maturity to use other alternatives to achieve their desired intentions. It is not uncommon for people to say again and again that they realize something is not good for them or for achieving what they really want or intend to do, but still persist in the behavior.

The impact of past events is often more than just the memory of those specific situations. In certain conditions, events can produce altered states of consciousness that lead to “unpleasant awareness,” as part of the person’s thinking process becomes dissociated from the rest. This dissociated part of consciousness, which Freud called the “secondary consciousness,” can produce ideas that are “very much cut off from associative communication with the rest of the contents of consciousness.”

In the NLP approach, people can move between different states of consciousness. There is a wide range of states that the nervous system can achieve. In fact, from the NLP perspective, it is useful and desirable to have “parts.” In circumstances that require a high level of performance, for example, people often put themselves mentally and physically into states different from their “normal state” of consciousness.