Cold-Reading Metaprograms, NLP Article

      A student recently came up to me at the beginning of a seminar and expressed frustration over (a) not having enough magic bullets of persuasion, (b) not being able to magically know exactly what to say to people he hadn't yet spoken to, and (c) not automatically being the persuasive guy he wanted to be, no matter how many 'magic bubbles' he hallucinated around him and his persuasion subjects.

      After I stopped laughing along with him, I asked him "So you want me to tell you how to get past all that? Or do you think you already know how?" Note, I already knew the answer to this question, but I wanted him to dig his position in a little deeper.

      And sure enough, he further solidified his position, which I knew would be useful for me later on -- "No, I don't know, which is why I'm asking you, Jonathan. I've been trying for months on my own to get through that, and I haven't -- so I'm looking to you for some answers!"

      I said "OK, fair enough. Happy to help. So you want to become a more effective, targeted communicator. Let's start with this...

      A little history here. Some people have tried to create a high-level method of creating more rapport by hallucinating "golden bubbles" around themselves and other people. (I know, I know, it's laughable).

      Still, they can work, as weird as they sound. Bubbles are a great high-level approach ONLY IF you've already got the skills built into your entire neurology -- into your entire body. And weekend trainings, let alone learning on one's own, are not sufficient to ensure that. Bubbles are pretty much useless to most (more useless to older people) if they haven't gone through the process first of involving their lower body consciously in their rapport skills. Over time, the older people get, typically, the less they use & move their body in communication with other people. Kids are naturals at this, because they use their entire bodies in almost every action they take. So -- use the bubbles only after going through a rigorous multi-day rapport training with conscious effort to involve the whole body. Then, they'll work surprisingly well as a high-level trigger for rapport. If you haven't had such a training, use the conscious rapport skills you've heard or read about such as mirroring & matching. You'll get clearer results than you would from the bubbles."

      "Second, you don't automatically deserve anything you want. Deserving value comes from providing it. Providing it comes from gathering better information, and using that information wisely."

      Then I told him "there are no magic bullets, & wanting magic bullets comes from a position of deprivation & scarcity, and that other people can sense that from a mile away... and they will build walls between them and you."

      I also told him "even though there's no magic bullets, there ARE powerfully persuasive perspectives, mindsets, and techniques, that -- when used & built upon a foundation of wanting to deliver ample value towards others, do work incredibly well. And that can help you walk through the hidden doorways of people's minds."

      That got him salivating.

      So I told him, "let's concentrate on the 2nd thing you said to me -- not being able to magically know exactly what to say to people you haven't yet spoken to."

      I asked him, "ever hear about metaprograms?"

      He said "Yes."

      I said, "OK, it doesn't matter to me who you learned them from, or how many you've heard there are; what matters is if you know how to figure them out. Do you?"

      He goes "Well, like if I ask a question, and someone tells me stories, I know they're procedurally-oriented, and if they give me lists of things, I know they're options-oriented...?"

      I said, "good, good! Yes, that's what I'm talking about. How about big chunk vs small chunk?"

      He said "If they use lots of details and focus on problems, they're small chunk, and if they use the 20,000-foot birds-eye-view, and use a massive visionary perspective -- they're big-chunk."

      Again I said "Good, good." He did seem to have some useful knowledge. So I stepped things up a bit. "And how often in real-world persuasion settings do you have an option to do complete metaprograms elicitations before you have to start persuading?"

      A pause ensued... "Ummm, not that often."

      I said, "Yup. And that's part of the challenge you face, making NLP more useful to yourself in real-world settings. So let's think about this from a different angle..."

      He balked. "What, you mean, before they ever open their mouth?"

      I said "Yes, of course."

      Then he tried to hoist his limiting belief on me. "You can't do that."

      I handed him back his limiting belief. "Sure I can. It's you who can't do that, yet."

      Ever watch someone's pupils dilate, really quickly?

      He said, "I gotta know how to do that." Quick response!

      I said, "OK, I'll get you started. Here's 3 metaprograms you can elicit completely nonverbally. And even though we can elicit them nonverbally, before they speak, it's true we do have to observe them in response to information provided in some context. So either WE have to be speaking first, or, we have to observe them responding to other people communicating."

      He nodded, not quite getting it. When they nod quickly, that's them pretending to keep their mind open.

      "My point is, that we cannot NOT communicate. That even when people are communicating to US, we're responding, sometimes in obvious fashion, sometimes in extremely subtle fashion. And so does everyone else. So if we can calibrate to those responses, and interpret those responses well, we can read their current contextual metaprograms."

      He nodded more slowly, starting to get it.

      "Take someone's motivation strategy -- Away-From, or Towards. This is the most obvious of them all. If I say something to you, and your head &/or upper body have a rapid micromuscular backing-away-from response which causes you to get more excited... Bingo. Away-from. If instead your head &/or upper body instantly moves forward and your face shows more excitement at that very same moment, Bingo. Towards. And what I do is -- I gather an overview of these responses over a short period of time, and take the average. Did you get more excited overall from away-from responses -- or more from towards responses? Because of course -- we're all capable of both. But people tend to rely more on one response than another -- in certain contexts."

      "Wow." He said. And I waited for that to sink in a while, then he asked a followup question: "So if I tell a disgusting story to someone, and their head backs away from me..."

      I had to interrupt him. "No, no, stop right there. Intentionally disgusting content, or, intentionally attractive content (like monetary subjects or romance/sex) will skew the results. You want to be speaking about things normally, on both sides of the metaprogram. Use away-from language yourself, use towards language yourself -- find out what they respond to most -- and how they respond to it."

      "Hmmm. OK, that makes better sense."

      "This can come into play immensely in business settings, such as corporate consulting & or when a sale is bring made, when businesses try to hide the decision maker in the room. They can't hide them from me, but they do so try!"

      He moved in towards me and jumped on that one. "Why can't they hide the decision maker from you?" I'd apparently engaged my student's towards response. Which I thought was useful since he began the conversation mired in away-from language.

      "Well, businesses know that if the decision maker is in the room, they're the only ones who'll get the attention from a consulting team. The rest of the group doesn't matter to the team. But to the decision maker, the rest of the group does matter -- how they respond to what's being offered is of paramount importance to the decision maker. So they often like to be present at key meetings, but remain silent or uninvolved."

      "Oh, hell yes, I've seen that happen. Makes sense."

      "So, they try a number of things to hide the decision maker. Sometimes the decision maker is introduced as a VP from another department (who later magically gets a transfer to that department!). Sometimes they're NOT introduced at all. Either way, it's obvious. You see, they want to hide the decision maker, not lie about him. If they lie about him, then hire you, they'll be seen as having been duplicitous, and they usually don't want that. They don't want to think of themselves as liars after all, just... sneaky."

      My student laughed. "You mean, like I do."

      "Something like that." I answered. "OK, let's move on to ..."

      "How the hell would you ever be able to tell that nonverbally???"

      Jonathan: "Well, it's really obvious, if you know what to look for. And you've already seen this time & time again, but -- you probably paid absolutely no attention to it. Ever see someone thinking to themselves, but showing external signs of it? Like, for example, they're running down a set of instructions in their head, touching each fingertip on their left hand with their index finger from their right? Or what about when they look upward in mild confusion, look to the left, then the right, then back & forth again, and finally, oscillating real fast between the two positions? These are examples of procedures vs options. People who are highly options-oriented in any given setting, do not have any particular sequence of things they like/have to do. So they have some number of options, and they have to weigh those options until one choice stands out. They'll show signs of 'weighing' multiple choices. Like pointing to (or looking to) multiple places in space as they think, and bouncing back & forth around those positions. Or, having one choice in one hand, and the other choice in the other, and actually pretending to weigh them. That's options. Lastly -- if they go downward through a list, it's not a list of options, it's a procedure. Sometimes it won't use both hands, it'll be touching their thumb to their index finger, then middle finger, then ring finger, then pinky... followed by a nod. These are all signals of someone running through a procedure in their mind."

      "That is so cool. I've probably seen that hundreds of times."

      Jonathan: "What did I tell you?"

      Student: "Excellent."

      Jonathan: "And I phrased it all that way because you let me do so."

      Student: "Huh?" He didn't know what I meant.

      Jonathan: "Well, no matter how much of an expert you are at other things, no matter how much you're sure about things in other contexts, no matter how strong your 'internal frame of reference' is elsewhere, in this context, you allowed yourself to have an 'external frame of reference' with respect to learning NLP skills."

      Student: "OK, but... why is that significant?"

      Jonathan: "That's another meta-program. Internal vs External frame of reference. Do you think it's useful for me as a trainer to spend much time training people with a highly INTERNAL frame of reference?"

      He started to grin.

      Jonathan: "In trainings, I want people to begin with a highly external frame of reference (i.e., the answers will come from external to themselves). Then I want them leaving for home at the end -- with a substantially greater reliance on an internal frame of reference."

      He grinned more.

      Jonathan: "So what do you think? What kinds of signals do you think indicate where someone's frame of reference is?"

      He said "I don't know yet, but I feel strangely good that you're asking me what I think."

      And it was my turn to smile, since I'd already begun adjusting his metaprogrammed response back to internal. "Well, it's pretty straightforward. Highly externally-framed people do not rush to judgement on what they're taking in. They just sponge from a source they view as an expert. Whereas highly internally-framed people will constantly evaluate what they're hearing as matching or mismatching what they already know or believe. So, tell me what kinds of signals do you think indicate where someone's frame of reference is?"

      Student: "I suppose... if they're constantly nodding yes or shaking their heads no or shifting their body language a lot as they listen to someone, they're probably internally framed."

      Jonathan: "Well done. And the other side of the equation?"

      Student: "I'd guess... if they maintain mostly a constant posture, either showing interest or not -- but not showing signs of rapid & premature judgement... then I'd guess they're willing to use an external frame of reference for at least a while."

      Jonathan: "Excellent."

      Sure enough, he'd learned enough to internalize the understanding that people cannot not communicate -- and that even while they're observing or listening to others -- they're usually "leaking" the signals that can tell us their current metaprograms.

      And that information, if interpreted correctly, can help us design appropriate language for their brains to absorb most readily.

      In the case of small chunkers, they'll appreciate the nitty gritty patterns & signals in this article.

      In the case of towards people, you'll all be wondering where you can use this to great effect! And in the case of away-from people, you'll all be grateful that you can change all those less-powerful or problematic circumstances into more empowering ones!

      In the case of procedural people, I've given you a series of things to look for in sequence (or not), within the context of a storyline (procedural). And in the case of options oriented people, you don't have to use that sequence, you can pick & choose which metaprograms to measure, according to what information is present at the time (options).

      In the case of big chunkers, they'll appreciate that bubbles work better AFTER conscious full-body-rapport training, and, they'll enjoy the higher view that all communication (verbal and nonverbal) has meaning that we can acquire & use.

      And in the case of highly internally-framed people, they'll either agree with everything I'm saying if they already know what I said is true, or, their limiting beliefs will convince them that I'm wrong, or, they may have found even more powerful ways than I know to use these observations, in which case they'll agree with what they know and disagree with what they already know is different. In the case of highly externally-framed people -- they'll all be floored at having a whole new way to gether information that can help tune their language towards others.

      I hope you've enjoyed this little journey into our minds... and how they work!

      Jonathan Altfeld

      P.S. If, as you've read this article, you know what I said is true -- but may not be sure as to why -- then I would encourage you to consider that I used "sleight of mouth" language patterns of persuasion to move my student from a self-limiting set of beliefs... to an empowering set of beliefs... and perhaps -- you might have taken some or all of that same ride along with the student in the story. Much of the work we do is most elegant, when it operates at the beliefs and belief system level. Often, changes made at the belief level... allow hosts of other difficult changes -- to occur almost magically. If you'd like to know more about these kinds of communication and these kinds of changes, please visit the following webpage to learn about.... BELIEF CRAFT.

[ Back to Top ] [ Back to Articles Index ]