Ad A d v a n c e d L a n g u a g e Pattern Mastery Flash Cards Vol II: Sleight of Mouth
Matt Caulfield
© 2012 Matt Caulfield
This entire document is copyright to Matt Caulfield. The right to sell it as a book or ebook is strictly reserved.
Acknowledgements
These cards would not exist without the hard work and insight of some of the geniuses and forerunners of NLP. In particular Richard Bandler, who’s argumentative skills these patterns are based on, and Robert Dilts who modelled and codified those patterns.
I must thank above everyone else Doug O’Brien who’s hard work in this area has made the sleight of mouth patterns accessible and easy to understand, learn and apply. If you wish to learn sleight of mouth, I highly recommend Doug’s books and audio programmes, which you can purchase at www.ericksonian.org.
Introduction
I produced the original set of “Advanced Language Pattern Cards” for myself and then for the attendees on my NLP Practitioner trainings. The plan was always to expand this deck into a second volume to cover the Sleight of Mouth Patterns, and finally here they are.
To use these cards, print them out onto card (or print them on paper and stick them to card), I have included a handy card back for you to use on them if you wish! If you really want to you could even laminate them...
The secret is to use them every day, even if it is just one card for 5 minutes. If you do that you will be surprised how quickly you master these patterns.
The great thing with having them as a pdf, rather than a hard copy, is if you lose a card or your set becomes a bit tatty, you can just print out a new one!
I hope enjoy them and find them useful,
Matt Caulfield
Sleight of Mouth: A History
“Sleight of Mouth” is a system of language patterns for persuasion. The story goes that Robert Dilts devised the patterns by modelling the argument and persuasion skills of Richard Bandler. By breaking down the methods used by Bandler, Dilts came up with 14 patterns.
The name "Sleight of Mouth" comes from the phrase "Sleight of Hand" which refers to a magician's skills in making things happen which appear im possible. Sleight of Mouth helps you change (or reinforce) peoples beliefs as if “by magic”.
The Structure of Belief
Sleight of Mouth focuses on influence by challenging, changing or reinforcing beliefs.
Sleight of looks at the two Meta Model Patterns of beliefs in more detail:
Cause-Effect: X causes Y, for example “if I eat chicken (CAUSE), it will make me sick (EFFECT)”. Complex Equivalence: X=Y, or X is equivalent to Y (the meaning a word or statement has to you). For example:
“You're late again, which means you don't love me”. (Note that this is not just "I believe you don't love me", but rather there is something that leads to that outcome.) “I am not going to do that, [because] I am not that kind of person!”
Polya Patterns and the Structure of Beliefs
George Polya was a mathematician (much the same as Alfred Korzybski, the developer of General Semantics) at Princeton who was curious about how people came to believe something if it wasn’t provable. He referred to this ability to believe in something as ‘plausibility’, he wanted to see how things became so plausible, that at some point it becomes ‘true’ for that person.
He described five patterns of plausibly (We have simplified the description to remove the complex mathematics. If you love maths feel free to dig out a copy the book these came from: “Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning Vol II”):
1. The Meta Pattern: Probability
The likelihood that something will occur again based on its past performance. The more something occurs the more we will tend to believe it will occur again (the sun coming up for example).
Also, if something which is not very probably occurs it tends to validate the case-effect belief which predicted it (pressing the button more often gets the lift to come quicker)
2. Verification of a Consequence
If a particular belief (B) implies a particular consequence and we verify the consequence (C) than it makes the belief more plausible.
>>> If B implies C and C is true then B is more credible. <<<
3. Contingency
If a belief (B) presupposes some event or phenomenon and we verify this contingent event (C) then it makes the belief more plausible.
>>> If B presupposes C and C is true then B is more credible. <<<
Polya’s example is about criminal defence or prosecution and is believed to have committed it, and that crime needs a contingent event and that event is proven to have happened it makes it more plausible that the person committed the crime.
Say someone is accused of holding up a store with a gun and the prosecution demonstrates the person has a gun, then the possibility that they held up the store seems more plausible.
4. Inference from Analogy
A belief (B) is more plausible if an analogous conjecture (A) is proven true.
>>> If B is analogous to A and A is true then B is more credible. <<<
This is where we draw comparisons to things that appear related, but aren’t.
If the analogy cannot be shown to be true but it can be shown to be credible then it still increases the plausibility of the analogous belief.
Animal testing is the classic analogy. In fact much of science is based on analogous testing...
5. Disprove the Converse
The plausibility of a belief increases is a rival conjecture is disproved.
This is the classic argumental process that the philosopher Nietzsche would use. He would rubbish the challenging conjecture and then provide his own. His own was often no more plausible, but because he has rubbished the alternative his appeared more plausible.
6. Comparison With Random
If the belief can be shown to be able to predict results better than random guessing then it is more credible.
Tips for Learning These Advanced Patterns
1. Us the Meta Model questions to recover the full belief before you begin. You can see the Meta Model patterns in the “Advanced Language Pattern Cards Vol. 1” (see www.mattcaulfield.co.uk).
2. You don’t need to learn the labels. They are the least important part of these cards. It is more important to be able to recognise, generate and know what to do with the patterns.
3. Set a goal, develop a plan and stick to it!
4. Start slowly (otherwise you may overwhelm yourself), just pick one card a day to begin with and listen out for, and generate, that pattern.
5. Have FUN! Enjoying what you are doing will make you learn much faster.
6. It must sound like naturally spoken, “normal”, language. If it sounds like hypnotic mumbo jumbo, it will not be as effective.
7. Practice good tonality (for more information see “Developing You Dynamic Voice” audio programme at www.mattcaulfield.co.uk).
Suggested Beginner Exercises
1. Write down a list of as many beliefs as you can think of, either in the Cause & Effect (this causes that) or Complex Equivalence (this means that). The classic examples are:
•
“Cancer causes death”
•
“Saying mean things, means you are a bad person”
•
“You being late means you don’t care about me”
•
“Nuclear arms means strength, protection and safety”
But generate (or listen out for) your own examples.
2. Draw one cards at and random and use it generate 3-5 challenges or counter examples.
3. Draw one card at and random and use it generate 3-5 suggestions that can reinforce the belief.
4. Draw three (or more) cards and generate a counter examples (or reinforcing suggestions) and form them into a coherent paragraph or statement (or story if you pick the “Metaphor/Analogy” card).
5. If you hear a belief pattern REMEMBER you do not need to challenge it, you can reinforce it too. However, it is good practice to think of a way it could be challenged.
For many more suggestions on how to practice language pattern drills please see the “NLP Exercise Manual” at www.mattcaulfield.co.uk
CAUSE/EFFECT will, will make, cause, requires, etc (X => Y)
“Positive thinking leads to unrealistic expectations”
COMPLEX EQUIVALENCE Making two different experiences have the same meaning (X=Y) “He doesn’t love me, he doesn’t buy me flowers”
THE META PATTERN: Probability The likelihood that som ething will occur again based on its past performance. The sun coming up.
META PATTERN
META PATTERN
Linguistic Structure of Belief
Linguistic Structure of Belief
© Matt Caulfield
VERIFICATION OF CONSEQUENCE If a particular belief impli es a particular consequence and we verify the consequence than it makes the belief more plausible.
POLYA PATTERN © Matt Caulfield
© Matt Caulfield
CONTINGENCY If a belief presupposes some event or phenomenon and we verify this contingent event then it makes the belief more plausible.
POLYA PATTERN © Matt Caulfield
DISPROVE THE CONVERSE
COMPARISON WITH RANDOM
The plausibility of a belief increases a s a rival conjecture is disproved.
If the belief can be shown to be able to predict results better than random guess ing then it is more credible.
POLYA PATTERN
POLYA PATTERN
© Matt Caulfield
© Matt Caulfield
POLYA PATTERN © Matt Caulfield
INFERENCE FROM ANALOGY A b el ie ve is m ore pla usib le if an analogous conjec ture is proven true. Th is is where we draw co mparisons to things that appear related, but aren’t.
POLYA PATTERN © Matt Caulfield
INTENT What makes them make this statement? Concentrate on the intention behind it. Highlight the positive function of the idea, or challenge the negative one.
SLEIGHT OF MOUTH © Matt Caulfield
CONSEQUENCES
ANOTHER OUTCOME
COUNTEREXAMPLE
Offer an alternative outcome of the belief.
Use an exception where their statement would not be true (useful if the structure of the belief include s a (Universal) Quantifier as evidence to that belief).
Look for the consequence (even an unintentional consequence) which can lead to the belief being challenged.
“Maybe you don’t need ABC, maybe you need XYZ?”
SLEIGHT OF MOUTH
SLEIGHT OF MOUTH
© Matt Caulfield
© Matt Caulfield
SLEIGHT OF MOUTH © Matt Caulfield
APPLY TO SELF
REALITY STRATEGY
MODEL OF THE WORLD
Turn the comment around onto them - by saying (or im plying) the consequence they suggest is applicable for you, really is applicable for them.
Delve behind the belief to their perceptions about the world. Challenge the perceptions the belief is based on.
Demonstrate that the belief is only true in their understanding or model of the world. Give alternative models as counter examples.
SLEIGHT OF MOUTH
SLEIGHT OF MOUTH
SLEIGHT OF MOUTH
© Matt Caulfield
META FRAME Challenge the basis behind the belief, rather than the belief. This can be a rather aggressive attack. It is “an all” out strategy, don’t use it lightly!
SLEIGHT OF MOUTH © Matt Caulfield
© Matt Caulfield
© Matt Caulfield
CHANGE FRAME SIZE
HIERARCHY OF CRITERIA
Extend the implications from the belief to some bigger (or perhaps a more compact) scale in order to a bigger (or shorter) time period.
Challenge the idea according to more ess ential criteria, recommending something more imp ortant they must be thinking about.
SLEIGHT OF MOUTH © Matt Caulfield
SLEIGHT OF MOUTH © Matt Caulfield
CHUNK DOWN
CHUNK (BLOW) UP
METAPHOR OR ANALOGY
Much like a lose thread can unravel a knitted jumper. Chunking down to a specific part of the belief and pulling that apart can unravel the whole belief.
Exaggerate the belief to an absurd level in order to challenge it. Taking it out of the context it is in.
Using an example, story or demonstration to challenge the belief.
SLEIGHT OF MOUTH
SLEIGHT OF MOUTH
© Matt Caulfield
REDEFINE Redefine the meaning of the words used in the structure of the belief. You can redefine the cause or effect or the resulting meaning (complex equivalence).
SLEIGHT OF MOUTH © Matt Caulfield
© Matt Caulfield
SLEIGHT OF MOUTH © Matt Caulfield
TIMELINE
REDIRECT
Challenge the belief on the basis of when and how long it holds true.
Attack the belief by questioning the underlying beneficial motives.
(ADDITIONAL) SLEIGHT OF MOUTH
(ADDITIONAL) SLEIGHT OF MOUTH
© Matt Caulfield
© Matt Caulfield
Card back to cut out and stick to your cards!
