NLP: Cognitive Biases, Sleight of Mouth, and the Meta Model

The Meta Model is not the only set of tools we have in NLP for unpacking irrational and unhelpful thoughts. Our rational thinking models are often disrupted by cognitive biases, like those described below, and simply recognizing these cognitive distortions can help us stay sane. Here, I’ve reclassified these cognitive biases into “Sleight of Mouth” patterns using Robert Dilts’ reframing model (see below for a version of his original list) and suggested Meta Model questions for each one.

Robert Dilts explained the origin of this list of patterns as follows: “During a seminar, Bandler, known for his linguistic mastery, created a humorous but ‘paranoid’ belief system to make his point and asked the group to convince him to change it. Despite all efforts, the group members couldn’t make any progress in influencing the seemingly impenetrable belief system Bandler had created (a system based on what I later called ‘thought viruses’). By listening to the various verbal reframings Bandler spontaneously generated, I was able to recognize some of the structures he used. Although Bandler applied these structures ‘negatively’ to make his point, I realized these are the same structures used by people like Lincoln, Gandhi, Jesus, and others to promote positive and powerful social change.” (Dilts, 1999)

Applying to Oneself

• Tu quoque: “You say insulting people is wrong, but what about when you insulted me?”
  Is the only way to decide if this is wrong to look at my behavior?
  Are you saying that if I acted as you recommend, that would make my statement true?
• Circular Reasoning: “The Bible, being the word of God, says Jesus is Lord, so it must be true.”
  So, X implies Y, Y implies Z. What if all of them are false?

Meta Frame

• Ad hominem fallacy: “You think that because you’re a Monsanto supporter.”
  Is it possible to think that way without ever hearing about Monsanto?
• Appeal to Authority: “Zach Bush is a doctor, and he says vaccines don’t work.”
  Does being a doctor mean your words are always true?
• Guilt by Association: “Hitler believed in gun control, so it must be wrong.”
  Has Hitler ever done something that was actually okay?
  If Hitler liked dogs, does that prove liking dogs is wrong?

Redefinition

• Affirming the Consequent: “If men were natural rulers, they’d be in charge. They are, so it’s natural.”
  Is being natural rulers the only reason men could be in charge?
• Non sequitur: “I ate ice cream and caught a cold, so ice cream causes colds.”
  Does everyone who eats ice cream catch a cold?
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc: “I thought about my girlfriend, then she called, so I made her call me.”
  Is everything that happens after something else caused by the previous thing?
• Correlation Fallacy: “We see more vaccinations and more autism. Vaccines cause autism.”
  Is there any other way both vaccination rates and autism rates could rise at the same time?
  Can two things happen together but not be related?

Frame Size Change / Generalization

• Reductio ad absurdum: “If evolution is true, frogs can turn into princes.”
  How exactly does evolution make frogs turn into princes?
• Slippery Slope: “If we legalize same-sex marriage, we’ll end up legalizing bestiality.”
  How exactly could same-sex marriage lead to legalizing bestiality?
• Composition/Division: “If it works in New York, it’ll work anywhere in America.”
  How do you know that what works in New York works everywhere in America?
• Hasty Generalization: “X is a leftist and supports climate action, so climate action is leftist.”
  Has there ever been a leftist who didn’t support climate action?
• Straaw Man Fallacy: “People can lie by looking left or right, so NLP eye-accessing cues are fake.”
  How does the idea of NLP eye-accessing cues mean that all lying is about looking in one direction?

Counter-Example

• Inflating Contradictions: “Since some virologists oppose masks, we can’t be sure they work.”
  If there’s one exception, does that mean there’s no general pattern?
  If one scientist believes in fairies, does that mean their existence is equally possible?
• Red Herring: “We’ll never know all the facts of geology, so we can never be sure about climate change.”
  How does not knowing all geology facts mean we can’t know this particular fact?

Reality Strategy

• Burden of Proof: “Well, I say vaccines caused many deaths. Prove me wrong.”
  If I make an absurd claim, like fairies exist, do you have to prove me wrong?
• Argument from Ignorance: “We can’t prove aliens don’t exist, so they must exist.”
  If we can’t prove something is false, is it always true?

Hierarchy of Criteria / Other Outcome / Intention

• Appeal to Emotion: “No one can tell me what’s right for my own child, whom I love!”
  I understand you have strong feelings, but how does that help us determine what’s logically correct?
• Appeal to Nature: “GMOs are unnatural, so they’re unsafe, and herbal remedies are natural, so they’re safe.”
  I understand naturalness is important to you, but how is it better in this specific situation?
• Appeal to Popularity, Tradition, etc.: “In Japan, whaling is traditional, so it’s okay.”
  I understand tradition is important to you, but how is it better in this specific situation?
• Middle Ground Fallacy: “Okay, maybe vaccines don’t cause all autism; let’s agree they cause some.”
  I understand agreement is important to you, but how does that help us find the truth?
• Fallacy Fallacy: “You made a logical error, so your conclusion can’t be true.”
  I understand it’s important for you to notice my logical errors, but how does that affect whether the conclusion is true?

Consequences

• False Dilemma: “Since the Bible is true, evolution is false. It’s either-or.”
  In what sense could both be true? Has anyone ever thought both were true?
• No True Scotsman: “No true Christian supports evolution, so X isn’t a Christian.”
  Has there ever been a Christian who supported evolution? Who defines a true Christian in this case?
• Gambler’s Fallacy: “The last two times didn’t work, so the third time will!”
  How does the future know what you did before? How does what happened last time affect this time?
• Ad hoc Fallacy: “I’d show you my psychic powers, but your skepticism blocks them.”
  How exactly does your expectation affect the result in this case?

Division

• Denying the Past: “Global warming causes heat. It’s not hot now, so there’s no warming.”
  How does one event now mean the overall trend isn’t happening?
• Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: “Measles outbreaks happen despite vaccination, so vaccines don’t work.”
  How does one small event mean the overall effect disappears?

Metaphor

• Stacking the Deck / 10 ‘Leaky Buckets’: “There are stories about vaccine failure, autism, and pharma corruption. Something must be wrong.”
  How do several false anecdotes add up to solid evidence that’s true?

Presupposition (Milton Model)

• Loaded Question: “Do you still blame me for everything that upsets you?”
  How do you know I blame you for what upsets you?
• Begging the Question: “The Bible says God exists, and it’s true, so God exists.”
  How do you know the Bible is true? What if it’s all made up?

Ambiguity (Milton Model)

• Ambiguity: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
  What specific sexual relations did you not have? What exactly do you mean by sexual relations?

Sources:
Dilts, R., Sleight of Mouth, Meta Publications, Capitola, California, 1999
Fallacy Man, Logical Fallacies, 2022
The Logic of Science: Logical Fallacies

Cognitive Biases

Cognitive biases are an inevitable result of using a brain designed for survival, not for rational thinking. Know when to use them, and when to spot and manage them!