Three Universal Modeling Processes

Since we do not interact directly with the world we live in, we create models or maps of it and use them to guide our behavior. For an effective communicator, it is crucial to understand the model or map of the world held by their conversation partner. No matter how peculiar human behavior may seem, it makes sense when viewed within the choices available in that person’s model or map of the world. The models we create guide us and help us make sense of our experiences. They should not be evaluated as “good,” “bad,” or “crazy,” but rather in terms of their usefulness—that is, how effectively they help us cope with and creatively respond to the world around us.

The problem is not that people make the wrong choices, but that they lack choices when they need them. Each of us makes the best choice available in our model of the world. However, too many models are impoverished due to a lack of useful options, as evidenced by the abundance of internal and interpersonal conflicts. “The lack of choices is not in the world itself, but in the individual’s models of the world,” say Grinder and Bandler.

We create our models through three universal processes of human modeling: generalization, deletion, and distortion. These processes allow us to survive, develop, learn, understand, and experience the diversity of the world around us. But if we mistakenly confuse our subjective reality with actual reality, these same processes can begin to limit us and suppress the abilities mentioned above.

Generalization

According to Grinder and Bandler, “Generalization is the process by which elements or parts of a model are separated from the original experience and begin to represent an entire class of phenomena, of which that experience was one example.” Through generalizations, we learn to act in the world. A child learns to open a door by pressing the handle. Then, the child generalizes this experience and tries to open various doors by pressing their handles. When entering a dark room, a person reaches for the light switch; they don’t need to learn a new strategy each time to turn on the light.

However, this process can also become a limitation. If a child burns themselves on a stove and generalizes that all kitchens are dangerous and should be avoided, they unnecessarily restrict themselves. Or if a woman, based on one or two unpleasant experiences, decides that all men are insensitive, she loses out on much. We all make countless generalizations that are useful and appropriate in some situations and not in others. For example, a child who learns at home that whining gets them what they want may only receive insults from classmates for the same behavior. If they generalize only this behavior to get what they want, they may be unable to adopt more suitable and useful behaviors among peers. Similarly, if a young man generalizes only the behaviors that earn him respect from friends, he may struggle to gain respect and interest from women. Whether a generalization is useful or not should be determined in each specific case.

Deletion

“The second mechanism we can use to interact effectively with the world, as well as to our own detriment, is deletion. Deletion is the process by which we selectively pay attention to certain aspects of our experience and ignore others” (Grinder and Bandler). This allows us to focus our consciousness and attention on one part of our experience at the expense of others. For example, a person can read a book while people are talking around them, the TV is on, or music is playing. Thanks to this process, we can handle tasks and avoid overload from external stimuli.

However, this same process can become a limitation if we delete parts of our experience necessary for building a complete and rich model of the world. For example, a person convinced that everyone treats them unfairly, but who deletes their own behavior that provokes such reactions, does not have a useful model of the world. A teacher who deletes the boredom of their students limits not only their own experience but also that of the students.

Distortion

“The third modeling process is distortion. Distortion is the process that allows us to transform the perception of sensory data” (Grinder and Bandler). Without this process, we could not make plans for the future or turn dreams into reality. We present a distorted view of reality in fiction, art, and even science. A microscope, a novel, a painting—all are examples of our ability to distort and represent reality differently.

The process of distortion can also limit us in many ways. Imagine a person who distorts all critical remarks addressed to them as “I am unlovable.” As a result, all value in criticism is lost, and often any possibility for change and growth disappears. Or consider the common distortion of turning a process into a “thing.” When “relationships” are separated from the process of relating, the people involved are harmed. Relationships become something “outside of us,” seen as if they are not a choice, not under our control, and lack dynamics.

The Meta-Model: Language and Modeling Processes

Since these three universal modeling processes are expressed in language, a set of linguistic tools called the Meta-Model can be used to change these processes when they limit rather than expand a person’s behavioral choices. The Meta-Model achieves this by linking language to the experience it represents. This set of tools is based on patterns of human speech and can be useful in any language-related activity.

The goal of the Meta-Model is to teach the listener to pay attention to and respond to the form of their conversation partner’s message. The content may change endlessly, but depending on the form of the information perceived, the listener can respond in a way that extracts the most meaning from the interaction. With the Meta-Model, you can quickly identify both the variety and the limitations of the information provided, as well as the modeling processes used by your conversation partner.

Meta-Model Categories

The categories of the Meta-Model can be divided into three classes:

• Gathering information
• Model limitations of the conversation partner
• Semantic violations

Gathering Information

This involves obtaining an accurate and complete description of the material presented through appropriate questions and answers. This process also helps link the speaker’s language to their experience. There are four groups in this class:

• Deletion
• Lack of referential index
• Unspecified verbs
• Nominalizations

Deletion

By recognizing deletions and helping a person recover the deleted information, we help restore a fuller picture of their experience. To recover missing information, ask, “About whom?” or “About what?” For example:

• “I don’t understand.”
  “What exactly don’t you understand?”
• “My daughter doesn’t listen to me.”
  “In what way doesn’t she listen to you?”
• “Parents argue.”
  “What do they argue about?”
• “I’m disappointed.”
  “What exactly are you disappointed about?”
• “I’m tired of it!”
  “What exactly are you tired of?”
• “I don’t like him.”
  “What exactly don’t you like about him?”

Lack of Referential Index

This is an example of generalization that limits a person’s model of the world by excluding parts and details necessary for having enough diverse choices to cope with the world. The person generalizes the experience so much that it changes form. To recover the missing referential index, ask, “Who exactly?” or “What exactly?” For example:

• “Class 10B is misbehaving.”
  “Which students are misbehaving?”
• “They say it’s better not to deal with him.”
  “Who specifically says that?”
• “Should have thought of others!”
  “Who exactly should I think of?”
• “People won’t understand this.”
  “Which people exactly won’t understand?”
• “The people demand reforms.”
  “Who exactly is demanding reforms?”
• “We’re buying pies.”
  “Who exactly is buying?”

Unspecified Verbs

Unspecified verbs do not give us a clear understanding of the experience being described. All verbs are somewhat unspecified, but “to kiss” is more specific than “to touch.” If someone says they were “offended,” you don’t know if someone looked at them angrily or pushed them on the street. By asking for clarification, you reconnect the person with their experience. To clarify unspecified verbs and adjectives, ask, “How exactly?” or “What exactly?” For example:

• “He pushed me away.”
  “How exactly did he push you away?”
• “I’m worried.”
  “What exactly (how exactly) are you worried about?”
• “She doesn’t know how to behave.”
  “How exactly should she behave?”
• “I want to be appreciated.”
  “How exactly do you want to be appreciated?”

By asking “How exactly?” you can get information related to the representational system being used.
“I don’t understand.”
“How exactly do you not understand?”
“It’s unclear to me” (visual representation).

Unspecified Adjectives

• “You’re incapable.”
  “Incapable of what exactly?”
• “He’s like that.”
  “Like what exactly?”
• “She’s strange.”
  “What exactly does she do that’s strange?”
• “He’s nasty.”
  “What exactly is nasty about him?”

Nominalizations

Nominalizations are words formed by turning process words (verbs) into nouns. When this happens, an ongoing process becomes a thing or event. As a result, we lose choices and need to reconnect with the ongoing dynamic processes of life. According to Grinder and Bandler, transforming a nominalization helps a person realize that what they considered a finished, unchangeable event is actually an ongoing process that can be changed.

You can distinguish nominalizations from regular nouns in several ways. Visual thinkers can use the “wheelbarrow test”: imagine putting different nouns in a wheelbarrow—cat, chair, car. Now try putting failure, importance, or confusion in the wheelbarrow. As you can see, although nominalizations are nouns, they don’t refer to people, places, or things you can put in a wheelbarrow. Another way to spot nominalizations is to see if you can use the word in the phrase “current _____.”

• current problem (nominalization)
• current elephant
• current chair
• current relationship (nominalization)

To turn a nominalization back into a process word, use it as a verb in your response. For example:

• “I’m haunted by fear.”
  “What exactly are you afraid of?”
• “I regret my decision.”
  “Is something stopping you from deciding differently?”
• “We have a bad relationship.”
  “How would you like to relate to him?”
• “I have a problem.”
  “What exactly is making things difficult for you?”
• “We’re in a quarrel.”
  “What did you quarrel about?”
• “I’m in a bad mood.”
  “How would you like to adjust your mood?”

Model Limitations of the Conversation Partner

This class identifies limitations, the removal of which can enrich and expand a given model of the world. It is divided into two categories:

• Universal quantifiers
• Modal operators (mainly modal operators of necessity)

Universal Quantifiers

Universal quantifiers are words like “all,” “every,” “always,” “never,” “forever,” “nobody.” One way to deal with them is to exaggerate the generalization—both in tone and by adding more universal quantifiers. This helps the person find exceptions to their generalization, thus giving them more choices. Another way is to ask if the person has ever had an experience that contradicts their generalization. For example:

• “You always do everything wrong.”
  “Have I never, ever done anything right?”
  Or: “Have I ever done anything right?”
• “You always deceive me.”
  “Do I always deceive you?”
• “You’re always arguing with me.”
  “Do I always argue, even when I’m asleep?”
• “It’s always the same!”
  “What specific moment are you talking about?”
• “I’m always in a bad mood.”
  “At what moments does your mood get worse?”
• “He’s just plain mean.”
  “In what way is he mean?”
• “Everyone here says so.”
  “Who exactly says so?”

Modal Operators

Modal operators are words that indicate a lack of choice: “must,” “can’t,” “have to,” “should.” Changing these modal operators helps a person move beyond the limitations they have accepted. There are two great questions to challenge these limitations: “What’s stopping you?” and “What will happen if you do it?” The first question takes the person back to the past to understand the experience behind the generalization. The second question makes the person look to the future and imagine possible consequences. These questions are especially important when helping someone achieve a fuller and richer model of the world. For example:

• “I can’t do this.”
  “What will happen if you do it?”
  Or: “What’s stopping you?”
• “You have to finish this by Tuesday.”
  “What will happen if I don’t do it?”
• “I must take care of others.”
  “What will happen if you don’t take care of them?”
• “I can’t tell him the truth.”
  “What will happen if you tell him?”
  Or: “What’s stopping you from telling him the truth?”

Semantic Violations

“Recognizing statements with semantic violations is necessary to help a person find parts of their model that are so distorted that they impoverish their available experience” (Grinder and Bandler). By changing parts of the model with semantic violations, a person gains more choices and greater freedom in interacting with the world. It is often because of these parts that a person cannot act as they otherwise would. Semantic violations are divided into three classes:

• Cause and effect
• Mind reading
• Lost performer