Unraveling Beliefs and the Meta Model

“Sleight of Mouth” patterns aren’t the only linguistic tools for changing beliefs. In this article, I’d like to show how approaches from the meta model can also be used to shift beliefs. Essentially, it’s just a different focus on the linguistic methods for changing beliefs. “Sleight of Mouth” is a catchy term, but it’s hard to turn it into a decent verb—“sleighting of mouth” doesn’t sound quite right. On the other hand, “unraveling” beliefs sounds much better.

The Meta Model and Sleight of Mouth

Meta model patterns describe violations of the language meta model. These violations occur during the process of “understanding the world” through three main ways of processing information: distortion, generalization, and deletion.

In principle, generalization and deletion are specific cases of information distortion, but this distinction is useful here.

• Generalization: We extend experience to other contexts—for example, after observing a few people, we draw conclusions about how people behave “in general”: “Everyone lies.”
• Deletion: Some information is omitted, such as the subject or object of an action: “The window was broken.”
• Distortion: (in this context) We change the structure—creating connections between events: “Depression leads to drinking.”

On one hand, this helps us process information and make it more digestible; on the other, some information is lost in the process. The meta model describes how to check the accuracy of the structure. For generalization—check the validity of the established boundaries; for deletion—restore the missing information.

Restoring Deletions

To restore deletions, two main questions are usually asked:

• Who did what to whom/what? (to recover the lost subject and/or object)
• How exactly?

Challenging Generalizations

To challenge generalizations, you can either check their validity:

• Is it really everyone/always/everywhere?

Or explore the consequences of going beyond the boundaries:

• What will happen if you do/don’t do this?

Restoring Structure (Correcting Distortions)

To correct distortions, we find out what the person based their conclusion on:

• What makes you think that?
• How exactly…?

Or simply offer a “restored” version, as with nominalizations: love – to love, conversation – to converse.

Beliefs are formed in the same way—through generalizations, distortions, and deletions. Therefore, meta model questions can be used to unravel beliefs. The approach is somewhat different from “Sleight of Mouth,” which often confronts the client with contradictions and creates a pattern break. Meta model questions invite the client to check the validity of their own judgment, which is gentler and often builds more trust, as the client feels they are reaching the conclusions themselves.

Using Meta Model Questions to Unravel Beliefs

Most meta model questions can be effectively used to unravel beliefs. The main difference, if any, is the level of generalization of what we’re questioning: meta model examples usually deal with specific situations (“He didn’t call me on my birthday—he doesn’t love me at all”), while here we work with the rules behind such conclusions (“If a man doesn’t call you on holidays, it means he doesn’t love you”).

Some meta model patterns practically describe the structure of beliefs and the questions that can be used to address such violations of the language meta model, like beliefs. Specifically, I’m referring to patterns related to restoring structure: “cause-effect” and “complex equivalence.”

Beliefs are divided into two groups: cause-effect beliefs and complex equivalence beliefs.

• Cause-effect beliefs: As the name suggests, these describe causal relationships: “To succeed, you have to work hard,” “If you drink a lot, you’ll become an alcoholic,” “Only self-control will make you self-sufficient.”
• Complex equivalence beliefs: These describe equivalence or comparison: “Love is beauty,” “You didn’t call me all week—you don’t love me,” “If you have a good family and a job you love, that’s happiness.”

Restoring Structure

When restoring structure, we help the client check the validity of their associations.

Cause-Effect

• How does X cause Y?
• “To succeed, you have to work hard.”
  How does working hard lead to success?
• “Laziness causes obesity.”
  How exactly does laziness cause obesity?

Complex Equivalence

• How does X mean Y?
• “A person who can’t do simple things is an idiot.”
  How does not being able to do something mean someone is an idiot?
• “He didn’t give me a birthday present—he doesn’t love me.”
  How are his gifts connected to his love for you?

Challenging Boundaries

Restoring structure isn’t the only way to unravel beliefs. Testing and crossing the boundaries of what’s possible—responding to generalizations—also works well.

Universal Quantifiers

Words like: everyone, always, forever, never, everywhere, nobody, each.

Universal quantifiers are common in beliefs: “Nobody will help you,” “Everyone only thinks about themselves,” “You’ll never be happy,” and other sweeping statements. Here, we look for contradictions with experience (essentially a “counterexample,” but the client finds the differences themselves).

• “Nobody loves me.”
  Absolutely nobody? Not even a little?
• “Everyone only thinks about themselves.”
  Have you never once thought about someone else?

Modal Operators of Impossibility and Necessity

Words like: can’t, impossible, must not, necessary, should, must, have to.

Modal operators (which in speech describe boundaries of possibility and necessity) are often found in beliefs, especially limiting ones: “No one can truly be happy,” “I have to work hard,” “You mustn’t think only of yourself.”

Appropriate meta model question:

• What will happen if you do it?

This works simply with beliefs. In most cases, beliefs about necessity/impossibility are cause-effect beliefs—with a missing cause or effect.

• “I have to work hard to be successful.”
• “You mustn’t think only of yourself, or no one will help you.”
• “You need to exercise to be healthy.”

The question helps the person restore the missing piece and assess the importance of the consequences—and make a choice.

• “I can’t change that fast!”
  What will happen if you do change quickly?
• “I must be attentive.”
  What would happen if you were a little inattentive?

Restoring Information

Vague verbs, nouns, and pronouns. Nominalizations.

Questions:

• Who did what with what?
• Who/what exactly?
• How exactly?

It’s best to turn nominalizations back into verbs first: love – to love, conversation – to converse, illness – to be ill.

• “I lost love.”
  Who loved whom? What exactly happened?
• “Men don’t like me.”
  Which men exactly?

Lost Performative

With lost performatives, we need to find out who made the judgment.

• Who decided that?
• “Scientists have found that coffee is harmful.”
  Which scientists found that?
• “It’s known that Ivanov is a loser.”
  Who decided that, and why?

Conclusion

In practice, using meta model questions with beliefs can be quite effective. Not everyone likes the pattern-breaking effect of “Sleight of Mouth.” Meta model questions, when asked with genuine interest and attention, gently guide the client toward the “right” conclusion and encourage them to find the missing information themselves, making the process much softer—though perhaps less flashy.