NLP Language Patterns or Wonders of Logic?

NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) is currently quite popular among both managers and psychologists. I couldn’t ignore this topic either. I found the “Language Patterns” (LP) especially interesting—these are verbal strategies that allow you to change beliefs. Robert Dilts identified 14 such language patterns.

In my opinion, these 14 patterns are essentially the main logical concepts and ways of thinking, beautifully packaged under the commercial brand of Language Patterns.

This article won’t go into detail about each pattern—there’s plenty of that information online. Instead, I’ll try to organize the 14 LPs into a more understandable system. I should note that I’m not a certified NLPer; I’m just sharing my perspective.

The 14 Recognized Language Patterns

• Intention
• Redefinition
• Consequences
• Separation
• Unification
• Analogy
• Changing the Frame Size
• Different Outcome
• World Model
• Reality Strategy
• Opposite Example
• Hierarchy of Criteria
• Apply to Self
• Meta-frame

Three Main Groups of Language Patterns

I’ve identified three main groups: subjective, objective, and neutral.

1. Subjective (Worldview-Based) Patterns

• World Model
• Hierarchy of Criteria
• Intention

These first three patterns relate to a person’s inner world and their views about themselves and reality. For example, the “World Model” reflects how a scientist, a religious person, or a creative individual each see things differently. “Hierarchy of Criteria” refers to the values a person holds—some are minor, like table manners, while others are major, like patriotism or family. “Intention” is about motives, desires, and aspirations, which are closely tied to worldview and values. Naturally, a soldier at war has different intentions than someone peacefully sleeping at home.

Language patterns in this group are aimed at appealing to a different worldview, addressing values, or emphasizing intention.

Sales Example: “Your warehouse is outside the city, far from us, so it’s not profitable for us to buy from you.”

Response using Group 1 Patterns: “Of course, for those who want and are ready to earn (World Model, Intention), the most important thing is to make a profit (Hierarchy of Criteria). If you value delivery convenience above all (Hierarchy of Criteria), and nothing else bothers you (Intention), I suggest using a transport company that will solve your logistics issues. On my end, I’ll arrange personalized terms for you, making it more profitable to buy from us outside the city than from a warehouse next to your office.”

2. Objective (Rational) Patterns

• Reality Strategy
• Consequences

What sets these two patterns apart from the subjective group is that they rely on facts and commonly accepted reality. This is exactly what the laws of logic require—identity, non-contradiction, and sufficient reason. “Reality Strategy” is what distinguishes an adult’s view of the world from a child’s. A child hasn’t yet accumulated enough experience with consequences, while an adult makes decisions based on what’s real and what’s not. For example, a child might imagine being Superman and jump into a puddle, while an adult knows about physics and their own abilities, considers the consequences, and walks around the puddle.

Sales Example: “Your advertising is too playful, so I don’t trust you and won’t buy from you.”

Response using Group 2 Patterns: “The playful presentation is just the candy wrapper—let me show you what’s inside. Let’s talk seriously; I’ll provide facts, figures, and proof that thousands of people trust our company (Reality Strategy). Once you have objective reasons to trust us (Reality Strategy), nothing will stop you from making a purchase (Consequences).”

3. Neutral (Transformational Techniques)

• Redefinition
• Separation
• Unification
• Analogy
• Changing the Frame Size
• Different Outcome
• Opposite Example
• Apply to Self
• Meta-frame

These techniques can be applied to the previous groups or used independently. Logically, they involve changing the point of view on an object, subject, or belief by altering the context or the scope of the concept being considered.

Logical Foundations: Deduction, Induction, Analogy

In formal logic, there are three main types of reasoning: deduction, induction, and analogy.

• Deductive reasoning (deduction): Drawing a specific conclusion from a general rule.
• Inductive reasoning (induction): Forming a general rule from several specific cases.
• Reasoning by analogy: Drawing conclusions about similarities in some traits based on similarities in others.

Analogy can be divided into analogy of properties and analogy of relationships.

All nine language patterns in the third group can be classified under one of these types of logical reasoning.

• Deductive techniques (narrowing the frame/context, specifying): Separation, Changing the Frame Size, Opposite Example, Apply to Self.
• Inductive techniques (broadening the frame/context, generalizing): Unification, Changing the Frame Size, Opposite Example, Meta-frame.
• Analogy techniques (finding similar concepts or images): Redefinition, Analogy, Different Outcome.

Some LP techniques can be both deductive and inductive, as they can be used for both generalization and specification.

Conclusion

To sum up, from a logical perspective, there are three main groups of language patterns: subjective, objective, and neutral (transformational techniques). The neutral group consists of analogy, deduction, and induction techniques.