NLP: Information Gathering Patterns

One of the reasons for the popularity of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is its ability to bring order to the chaos of thought. Inspired by this, I decided to cultivate a small patch of the psychological field, which is still overgrown with impenetrable weeds. NLP, as is well known, is aimed at providing choice. I follow this principle by offering a set of information gathering patterns that differ in form and can be easily reproduced by anyone in any context. This is what makes this article an NLP article.

In one respect, I have deviated from tradition—the patterns presented below are not the result of modeling Einstein or Aristotle, but rather a description of my own approach to gathering information. But what does “my own” mean for someone who has practiced NLP daily for seven years, even without a lunch break? It means that, for the most part, they include techniques from Bandler, Grinder, and company, as well as everything absorbed from various NLP books and seminars, though it’s no longer clear from which ones exactly. In any case, John Grinder’s call to “create your own code or code what hasn’t been coded yet” is being realized (Patrick E. Merlevede, John Grinder’s Future Vision for NLP, 1997).

Do you agree that all of us, regardless of our level of psychological training, gather information about our conversation partners? This is a natural part of the communication process.

Initially, the patterns below were presented in my “School of the Young NLP Fighter”—an email NLP course I periodically ran on my website “NLP and the People” (www.nlp-and.narod.ru) (Author’s note: The project is now closed).

They were presented as an assignment called “Mirages in the Crosshairs,” aimed at having course participants test the quality of their observations of people and clarify mistaken interpretations. By “interpretation,” I mean static knowledge about various aspects of an opponent’s behavior formed during communication (for example, about their intentions, mood, attitude), not based on directly observed facts, but consciously or unconsciously generalized from them.

Later, I noticed that I use these patterns in a broader context—to create conditions for people to open up and to observe them. I call this context information gathering.

Effective communication includes the sequence “observation – interpretation – verification” as a component. The whole process can be described as a loop: “observation – interpretation – observation – correction of interpretation – observation – correction of interpretation – …” or a typical feedback loop.

John Grinder, for example, speaking about the inefficiency of labeling people as “visual,” “auditory,” etc., recommends checking every 30 seconds to see if a conversation partner’s representational system preferences remain the same (S. Collingwood, J. Collingwood. Interview with Dr. John Grinder. Inspiritive, 1996).

The patterns below are part of the interpretation correction step and create a favorable context for observation. Their purpose is to put your conversation partner in conditions where the meaning of their behavior becomes more obvious to you. After you use these patterns, your partner will make the part of their mental map you’re exploring even clearer.

Thus, you catalyze information gathering by prompting your partner to provide you with new data for observation in the area you’ve chosen. In other words, you use the strategy “observation – interpretation – pattern – observation – interpretation – pattern,” and so on. Each time, your interpretation becomes more accurate.

The quality of interpretation correction also depends on two components:

• Your sensory acuity—the ability to notice as many observable aspects of a person’s behavior as possible.
• The interpretation strategies you use—your ability to interpret observed behavior as accurately as possible.

The content of these components is not covered in this article.

It’s worth noting that the information gathering loop can be fully conscious, partially conscious, or completely unconscious. If you’re not aware of your actions in this area, it’s only because you lack skills you can gain by reading this article to the end.

Consciously or unconsciously, people gather all kinds of information. What the observer pays attention to in the partner’s behavior and how they interpret it (the observer’s insight) determines the overall effectiveness of communication. Here, the old GIGO principle (garbage in, garbage out) applies. The antidote to empty or low-quality information is to use NLP methods for observation. However, describing observation methods and how to choose information for observation is beyond the scope of this article.

I’ll just note that, in my opinion, for quality information gathering, it’s useful to pay attention to:

• The partner’s goals (both in general communication with you and in the specific conversation, for each topic discussed).
• The partner’s mood (including how what you say affects their mood).
• The partner’s reactions to you—in general, to your specific actions, words, ideas, etc. It’s important, or even most important, to determine not only how the partner reacts, but whether the reaction is directed at you, at what you did or said, or at something unrelated (e.g., their own insecurity, discomfort, memories, etc.).
• The partner’s attitude toward what they’re saying (confident or not, honest or not, open or closed, interested in the topic or not, etc.). If the person talks about people or topics, you can determine their attitude toward those people and topics.
• The partner’s congruence. Consistency between:
  • Individual movements.
  • Signals from the right and left sides of the body.
  • Representational systems (e.g., between visual and auditory signals).
  • Analog and digital information:
    • The meaning of what the person says and what their body or part of their body shows at the same time.
    • The meaning of what the person says and how they say it.

This list, of course, does not exhaust all areas of observation, and, following NLP guidelines, it’s more useful to pay attention to what your partner’s feedback and your goals in the interaction point to.

In any case, it’s worth remembering that “for practice, the most important information is that which changes most quickly or that we can influence ourselves” (V. Birkenbihl, The Language of Intonation, Facial Expressions, Gestures. St. Petersburg: Piter Press, 1997).

That is, the most valuable reactions are those that occur in abundance right in front of you during your communication with another person.

Once you consciously or unconsciously choose what you want to learn about your partner, you begin observing them. The methods this article focuses on are used as soon as you realize you’ve made an interpretation about your partner. As soon as you apply a pattern, and as soon as your partner starts reacting to it, you need to carefully observe their reaction.

Interpretation

During observation, note all your interpretations. By this, I mean everything you cannot directly observe. For example, a slight blush or a slow nod is an observation (sensory-based information), while an embarrassed face or a detached nod is an interpretation. “He looks embarrassed” or “She’s not paying much attention to me” is an even greater interpretation, as it interprets many other interpretations. At this step, notice all your conclusions—all your interpretations. You can practice separately by simply observing a person and noting to yourself what exactly you see. During this, you can say to yourself: is this an observation or an interpretation? (e.g., “he moves his elbow smoothly”—observation; “he squints slightly”—observation; “he is calm”—interpretation, etc.).

Applying a Pattern

As soon as you notice an interpretation that needs checking and clarification, you apply one of the patterns below.

1. Direct QuestionYou can find out your partner’s point of view in the area where you have an interpretation, without revealing your interpretation. That is, you ask as if you don’t even assume what the answer might be.

   Examples:

   • Interpretation: The partner said something to interest me.
     Check: I’m curious, why are you saying this?
   • Interpretation: She doesn’t like what I suggested.
     Check: So, how do you feel about my suggestion?

   Surprisingly, such a simple approach is very powerful, especially in open and trusting relationships.

2. Question About the InterpretationYou ask your partner directly if your interpretation is correct, revealing its content. Essentially, you’re asking if you understood them correctly.

   Examples:

   • Interpretation: The partner said something to interest me.
     Check: Are you trying to interest me with this? Did I get that right?
   • Interpretation: She doesn’t like what I suggested.
     Check: You don’t like this? Or did I misunderstand you?
3. Comment
   • 3.1 “Confident” CommentYou don’t ask if your interpretation is correct, but state it very confidently, as if it’s an obvious fact. You need to observe your partner from the moment they first realize what you’ve said.

     Examples:

     • Interpretation: The partner said something to interest me.
       Check: So, you want to interest me with this.
     • Interpretation: She doesn’t like what I suggested.
       Check: I see, you don’t like this.
   • 3.2 Questioning CommentHere, you let your partner know that you’re not sure about your conclusions, but you don’t ask directly. Your visible uncertainty and a pause after the phrase turn it into a question. Again, observe your partner from the moment they realize what you’ve said.

     Examples:

     • Interpretation: The partner said something to interest me.
       Check: Feels like you want to interest me with this. (Pause)
     • Interpretation: She doesn’t like what I suggested.
       Check: It seemed to me that you don’t like this. (Pause)
4. Meta-CommentWith a meta-comment, you tell your partner only your observations that led to your interpretation. The pause after your comment encourages a reaction.

   Examples:

   • Interpretation: The partner said something to interest me.
     Check: You’re watching my reaction to your words so closely and describing everything so vividly. (Pause)
   • Interpretation: She doesn’t like what I suggested.
     Check: You tensed up when I said that. (Pause)
5. Passive ReactionI can’t help but express my admiration for this elegant way of gathering information and influencing people. I started using it often and consciously after seminars with well-known Russian NLP trainer Mark Palchik.

   Interestingly, passive behavior can have as strong, or even stronger, an effect on people as active behavior. As Vera Birkenbihl noted, it’s based on the fact that “most people start talking when you start being silent,” or more generally, “your presence in passive Yin energy leads your partner to switch to active Yang energy” (not a direct quote, M. Palchik).

   In this case, you fall silent and enter a state of full “uptime” (complete focus on what’s happening around you) right after you’ve made an interpretation based on your partner’s behavior.

   Examples:

   • Interpretation: The partner said something to interest me.
     Check: He’s finished his passionate speech and is waiting for your reaction, but you remain silent until he has to speak again. During the silence, you can either nonverbally show extreme attention or be completely “indifferent.”
   • Interpretation: She doesn’t like what I suggested.
     Check: After making the suggestion, you wait for a verbal reaction. If it’s insufficient, you keep silent until she speaks again.

   Essentially, it may be your turn to speak, but you act as if “the ball is still in your partner’s court.”

6. Pacing (Mirroring)Pacing can also be used to check your interpretations. It’s especially useful when you suspect your partner has a certain belief (e.g., “He probably thinks everyone wants to cheat him”) or a certain attitude toward something or someone. The idea is that you start expressing their point of view yourself and watch their reaction. If your behavior doesn’t provoke protest, you not only confirm your interpretation but also improve rapport.

   Examples:

   • Interpretation: He probably thinks everyone wants to cheat him.
     Check: You know, I really think you can’t trust anyone in this world. For example, yesterday I went to the bakery…
   • Interpretation: He probably thinks “Spartak” is no good, but “Dynamo” is great.
     Check: You know what I think? Honestly, “Spartak” isn’t what people make it out to be! Just remember their last match…
   • Interpretation: He probably likes gardeners.
     Check: You just mentioned cherries, and it reminded me—my grandfather was a gardener. I used to visit him in Siberia. His work fascinated me. It was paradise on earth. If only we could grow apricots!
7. Verb ReturnThis method can be used when your partner talks about their internal state, but you interpret it differently. The method is to repeat the verb from your partner’s phrase in a question.

   Examples:

   • Partner: I’m confident in what I say.
     Interpretation: He’s fooling himself and isn’t really confident.
     Check: Confident? (Pause)
   • Partner: I think I’ll do it.
     Interpretation: Nope, he won’t.
     Check: You’ll do it? (Pause) Or you think? (Pause)

Frames for Patterns

In NLP, a frame is a metaphorical way to describe the possibility of placing any content inside it. Depending on the frame you choose, the overall impression of the picture changes. One of the most famous NLP frames is the “as if” frame. You can behave in any way if you act “as if.”

When you need to adopt someone’s skill, one step is to imagine you’re behaving as if you are the person with the skill you want. If someone says to an NLPer, “I don’t know,” the NLPer can reply, “Imagine as if you already know.” That’s all the introduction to frames for today.

Just as you can perform any behavior “as if,” you can insert the interpretation-checking patterns described above into the following frames, where you reveal the content of your interpretation.

Frame of Counter-Interpretation (Reverse Frame)

Milton Erickson sometimes had situations where women came to him, but their husbands also needed to be present at the consultation. The husbands, however, flatly refused to see a psychologist. What did he do? He simply told his patients things about their husbands that were clearly untrue. The wives, as he expected, would tell their husbands everything, and by the second or third session, the husbands would show up, eager to set the record straight and find out who this doctor was who was talking nonsense.

This is a classic example of perfectly NLP-style, goal-oriented behavior.

Here’s my belief! Very often, people are so eager for the truth that they react strongly when they’re misunderstood or “as if” misunderstood. In such cases, they’re often ready to present their point of view on a silver platter. This Achilles’ heel is softer the more rigid a person’s belief system is and the more straightforward they are.

The counter-interpretation frame for checking methods involves two steps:

1. Identify the counter-interpretation (the opposite of your interpretation).
2. Directly apply the checking method, based on the counter-interpretation.

You can use the following methods:

• Question about the interpretation
• “Confident” comment
• Questioning comment
• Meta-comment
• Pacing

Example 1: Based on the “Confident” Comment Method

Using the tendency described above, you can make your “confident” comment the exact opposite of your interpretation. By the way, that’s why “confident” is in quotes—you’re not really sure in either case; you just speak as if you are (again, the “as if” frame).

Example of a deliberately false “confident” comment:

• Interpretation: The partner said something to interest me.
  Counter-interpretation: The partner doesn’t care whether I’m interested or not.
  Check: So, you don’t care what I think about this.
• Interpretation: She doesn’t like what I suggested.
  Counter-interpretation: She likes my suggestion.
  Check: I see, you like this.

Example 2: Based on the “Pacing” Method

If your interpretation is correct, then using the counter-interpretation with the “pacing” method will turn it upside down. Essentially, pacing will become either mismatching or lack of pacing. Using this method with this frame can have the strongest impact, as it often leads to an argument.

Here’s the “truth serum.” In an argument, the truth (your partner’s truth) comes out with force. Arguments are often heated. When consciously used for information gathering, an argument is a context that allows you to use the advantage of flexible beliefs to influence a partner’s more rigid beliefs.

You provide the truth serum or the “as if” truth serum. The truth serum is your conscious position against your partner’s opinion, regardless of what you actually think. It’s just a trick. Nothing more.

Examples:

• Interpretation: He probably thinks everyone wants to cheat him.
  Counter-interpretation: People can be trusted.
  Check: I think you can trust almost anyone. For example, when I’ve been in unfamiliar cities and needed help…
• Interpretation: He probably thinks “Spartak” is no good, but “Dynamo” is great.
  Counter-interpretation: I support “Spartak.”
  Check: “Spartak” really showed their stuff last week! No matter what people say, “Spartak” is “Spartak!”

Note for those who want to use this frame: Using the counter-interpretation frame may not always be appropriate, especially with the “pacing” method. In NLP, pacing beliefs—showing that your point of view matches your partner’s—is a key component in building rapport. If your goal is to build a relationship, it’s often not the best choice to show your difference or “as if” difference (for your partner, it’s the same). Especially if the belief you’re challenging is very important to your partner. However, some people like having their “eyes opened,” enjoy arguing, or appreciate people who can express disagreement. Some will see this as “honesty” and consider you “reliable.” In that case, your mismatching will turn back into pacing. It’s not that simple. Onward to experiments!

Frame of Generalization (Chunking Up)

This is another trick. If the goal of the previous frame is to provoke your partner to reveal information (to add activity, tension, Yang energy), the goal of the generalization frame is the opposite—to soften information gathering, highlight your detached role, Yin energy.

This frame is a particular case of the generalization process described in Noam Chomsky’s transformational grammar and the NLP meta-model.

The idea is to generalize your interpretation from a specific case you see in your partner to a statement about laws (of human relations, the world, society, etc.). You don’t talk about the specific person, but about people in general. You don’t say the person is cheerful and ready to talk (interpretation); you say, “Cheerful people usually find it easy to connect with others.” Here, words like “people,” “usually,” and “with others” indicate generalization.

Why turn an interpretation into a universal law in the context of checking interpretations? If you state a belief without claiming it as your own (not “I think all women are troublemakers,” but “All women are troublemakers!”), you move the conversation to another level—from discussing current behavior to something abstract but still related to the situation.

If your partner disagrees, they’ll likely say, “I don’t think so. Actually, women are…” and off you go—talking about women, not about who thinks what. Why do this? For example, instead of saying, “What are you doing, Vasya?” you say, “When one person hits another in the face, he humiliates the other!” The second is much softer. Now Vasya will have to explain whether he wanted to humiliate you by breaking your nose, was just bored, or maybe even did it out of respect.

No personal attacks!

When people talk about truths, traditions, rules, laws, etc., they can open up much more than when talking directly about themselves, because they believe the whole world thinks the same way. Read the newspaper “Two.” Almost all letters there are stories from personal life, but they write about husbands and wives, men and women, the childless and the lonely, and rarely about themselves in the singular. When it comes to rules, laws, and truths, any experienced NLPer knows it’s never about rules, laws, and truths—it’s always about the person’s own story.

Applying the generalization frame involves two steps:

1. Formulate a generalization of your interpretation. Usually, this requires a broader context, combining your interpretation with other interpretations or observations.
2. Apply a method based on the generalized interpretation.

You can use the following methods:

• Question about the interpretation
• “Confident” comment
• Questioning comment
• Pacing

Example: Based on the “Questioning Comment” Method

• Interpretation: The partner said something to interest me.
  Generalization: To generalize, you may need a broader context, for example:
  • If someone likes something, they always want someone to share that interest.
  • When people describe something vividly, they want us to be interested.

  Check: It seems to me that if someone likes something, they always want someone to share that interest. (Pause)
  When people describe something so vividly, I get the feeling they want to interest others. (Pause)

• Interpretation: She doesn’t like what I suggested.
  Generalization:
  • Women don’t like it when men suggest things to them.
  • People don’t like being asked to do things they don’t want to do.

  Check: It seems to me that women usually don’t like it when men suggest things. (Pause)
  Yeah. (Sigh) People don’t like being asked to do things that go against their beliefs. (Pause)

This frame probably requires more experience, creativity, and focus. The main trap is that you may not notice when you climb onto the bastions of your own beliefs and, defending them, fiercely attack your opponent. When you catch yourself in the heat of battle, remember that you’re dealing with “as if” beliefs, and that’s what allows you to flexibly manage communication.

When you use this frame, remember that your generalized interpretation is essentially worthless, since you know you created it and it’s completely artificial. Remember, your goal is to check the original interpretation. Checking through generalization is just a trick. Nothing more.

Observation

You need to observe your partner as soon as they start reacting to the pattern you’ve used.