The Meta Model Extended

The Meta Model was extended in 1997 when Richard Bandler asked L. Michael Hall to write the 25-year update on the Meta Model. Hall's extensions are presented and discussed in his book, Communication Magic and include nine new Meta Model forms based on Korzybski's General Semantics, Cognitive Therapy and Rational Emotive Therapy (Beck and Ellis).

Over/Under Defined Terms (O/U)

We over-define (or over-limit) words By Intension when we over-trust our formal verbal or dictionary definitions.

As we over-believe in our definition of the word as 'real,' we give it (in our mind) too much substance and concreteness. We under-define words by using too little extension (that is, failing to use specific facts and details that Extend on out to actual referents which we can point to.) This results in our generalizations becoming merely hypothetical (assumed or thought to exist; supposed; conjectural; an opinion based on guesswork).

When we primarily orient ourselves in the world by intension, we create maladjustment. We then perceive, think, and evaluate reality by over-definitions, confusing our maps (or 'verbalisms') with the territory. This invites us to the magical thinking that treats words as real.

Effective evaluating occurs when we extensionalize. We do this by pointing to the extensional facts. This operationalizes our terms. We create a better adjustment to things as we do so. This explains why the Deletion questions in the Meta-model work so magically to enrich our lives. As we become more specific, we index our concepts to specific people, times, places, and contexts. This interrupts the habit of over-generalizing which often shows up as the cognitive distortions of  'terriblizing,' 'awfulizing,' 'negative predictions of the future,' 'personalizing,' etc.

By primarily operating ourselves in the world by means of intensional (dictionary) definitions of words, we over-develop a hallucinatory adaptive style. The intensional style treats words as 'real' without an external check.

The Extensional meaning is something that cannot be expressed in words, because it is that which words stand for (the message.)

The Intensional meaning of a word or expression is that which is suggested (connoted) inside one's head. Whenever we express the meaning of words by uttering more words, we are giving intensional meaning, or connotations.

"Angels watch over my bed at night" - Has several intensional meanings, but no extensional meanings.

When we say "has no extensional meanings" we are saying that we cannot see, touch, photograph, or in any scientific manner, detect the presence of angels.

Extensional/External/Empirical/sensory-based/factual: "This room measures 15ft long", "She received 100 more votes in the election", "We have increased production by 20% since the last report."

Intensional/Internal Terms/Theoretical/Not sensory-based/opinion: "This is a beautifully decorated room", "She is undoubtedly the best candidate for the job."

Meta-modeling Over-Under Defined Terms:

a) What is the Extensional evidence for this Intensional term? Please operationalize what you mean in sensory-based language e.g. behavioural terms.)

"What can you point to?"

b) Explore presuppositions in the undefined terms. (This gets the speaker to put his epistemology, so to speak, on the table.)

"What does this assume/imply?"

"What have you presupposed in stating this?"

"What are you implying (by that statement)?"

c) Train yourself for the extensional orientation. (The natural order of evaluation involves facts first, then evaluations/opinions.)

"What are the facts upon which you've based this term or this idea?"

"I get impatient because I'm not being productive." - "What do you want to produce?"

Delusional Verbal Splits (DVS)

Elementalism - a tendency to postulate a separation into independent entities or elements of things (such as mind and body, space and time, observer and observed) that can be only verbally so separated. E.G. mind-body, time-space, thoughts-emotions, neuro-linguistics, neuro-semantics, psycho-logics, etc.

Physically and mentally and emotionally and spiritually becomes... mental-emotional spirit-body, for example.

Or, Dichotomizing: regard or represent as divided or opposed. A division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.

Doing this allows us to create theories, understandings, hypotheses, etc. It enables us to create fields, disciplines, and areas of intellectual study.

Meta-modeling Delusional Verbal Splits: To question and challenge a delusional verbal split, and the elementalisms lurking within, you can do any of the following:

a) Hyphenate the delusional verbal split. This enables us to reconnect hilstic processes that we can only seperate verbally.

"A little dash here and there may be of serious semantic importance when we deal with symbolism."

b) Question the elementalism: "Does X (the DVS) truly stand alone?", "What context does X occur within?", "Can we deal with X without also considering Y or Z?"

c) Create holistic terms: psychosomatic, semantic reactions, neurophysiology, psychobiology, attitude (a mental-emotional state), etc.

Either/Or Phrases (E/O)

(see Double Binds)

Either/Or terms leave out excluded middles, continua, both-and perspectives, degrees, gray areas, fuzzy or indeterminant areas, etc.

"You're either with us, or against us." 

"If you can't beat them, join them."

It also creates over-simplification and two-valued dichotomies. E.g., heredity/environment, nature/nurture, heaven/hell, genetics/learning, black/white, male/female, existence/non-existence, day/night, hot/cold, water/land, etc. It is when we totally exclude all middles that we create these very limiting maps for ourselves. Then we have no twilight or dusk, no colours between black and white, no Hispanics, no transgenders or bisexuals, etc. Non-Aristotelian thinking enables us to recognize that we may evaluate something as something other than 'true' or 'false'. It may also be 'ambiguous,' 'meaningless,' 'doesn't apply,' or the indeterminate 'I don't know.'

Structurally, either/or statements assume a two-valued cause-effect thinking. Frequently this offers an over-generalization resulting from the failure to take into account levels of abstraction and the nature of multiordinal and infinite-valued terms. When that happens, then we preclude seeing and recognizing more complex interactions, meanings that involve multiple layers, and things that are ambiguous in meaning until the context is specified.

"Are you satisfied with your job?" "How do you best like to relax?" "Do you totally relax when you do that?" "Could you relax even 0.5% more?" "Do you prefer to study by listening or reading?"

"If there was a third option/if you had another choice, what would you like it to be?"

Fuzzy Logic and Reasoning: The formal name for fuzziness is multivalence. The opposite is bivalence or two-valuedness, two ways to answer a question, true or false.

Fuzziness means multivalence, three or more options, perhaps even an infinite spectrum of options.

Everything is a matter of degree.

"I'll take the option you didn't mention."

Meta-modeling Either/Or Terms and Phrases:

a) Reality-test the Either/Or structure - "Does this truly reflect an either/or situation?", "If there was a scale from 0 to 10 what lies at 3,5,7, etc.?"

b) Explore the possibility of Both-And - "In what way could we consider both of these choices as accurate and useful?"

c) Add "etc." - The use of the term 'etc' not only signifies 'and so on,' but also, 'let the reader recognize that there are many other things that we could say about this, and that we have not uttered the last word about this.' Korzybski believed that the liberal use of 'etc.' would help to establish the extensional attitude and orientation.

Multiordinality (M)

 When Nominalizations increasingly become broader and general enough for us to use them at many different levels of abstraction, this leads to multiordinality. At this point, the words only have an over-generalized meaning, and the meaning changes according to the level of abstraction or context. Over-generalizing to the point where a word has a multiplicity of meanings and can be applied, ad infinitum, to itself.

What's deleted in multiordinal terms is the level or dimension of abstraction of the generalization.

"Mankind, science, mathematics, man, education, ethics, politics, religion, sanity, insanity, iron, wood, apple, object, etc." We use them not as one-valued terms for constraints of some sort, but as terms with inherently infinite-valued or variable referents.

"I love my love of democracy." "I love being in love (which creates infatuation.)" "I love the feeling of infatuation (which could be romaticism.)"

"Are you tall, short, fat, thin, smart, honest?" "Are you resourceful, happy, focused?"

Fuzzy sets, like multiordinal terms, are matters of degree, and depend upon time, context, etc.

"My goal is to be happy all the time." - "If you break your leg, do you want to be happy about it?"

"I want to be completely free from fear." "Do you also want to be free from the fear of fear? Or the fear of being bitten by a poisonous animal?"

Meta-modeling Multiordinal Terms:

a) Use co-ordinates.

b) Supply a context.

c) Chunk down (specifiy): "In science, we have to use an actional, 'behaviouristic', 'functional' 'operational' language, in which we do not say that this 'is' so and so, but where we descrive extensionally what happens in a certain order. We describe how something BEHAVES, what something DOES,  what we DO in our research work."

d) Check for reflexivity: See if you can reflexivel turn the word back onto itself;

"Do you love someone?" "Do you love loving them?" "Do you love loving love?"

"Do you have a prejudice?" "What about a prejudice against prejudice?"

"What science relates to this?" "Do you also have a science of this science?"

This reflexivity will not work with non-multiordinal words: "What a beautiful tree! Suppose you had a tree of that tree?"

e) Put quotes around words.

Static or Signal Words (SW)

Heavy Terms. Legislative semantic mood, absolutisms, and 'the deity mode.' 

"Whatever is, is." 
"Nothing can both be and not be." 
"Everything must either be or not be."

"You've got to be together to be together." - "If I were together, how could I tell?"

"Authority should be questioned." - "Which authority should be questioned about what?"

Meta-modeling Static Terms:

a) Loose up the multiordinal terms.

b) Extensionalize. "Point out to me specifically what you mean."

c) De-infinitize the state. Identify stages and variables. As you do that, you will be communicating the message, "Not true for all people, all time, all space, etc."

d) Ask meaning questions. "What do you mean by... ?" "How do you define real?"

Pseudo-Words (PW) Or Non-Referencing Words

Auditory Noises and Visual Spell Marks. Meaningless signs.

"One of the obvious origins of human disagreement lies in the use of noises for words." - Alfred Korzybski

Heat. Space. Infinite. Own/Ownership. Awful. Horrible. Terrible.  "What is awful, horrible, terrible about this? What does this mean other than just undesirable? What is meant other than intense dislike and aversion?"

Meta-modeling Pseudo-Words:

a) Reality test the reference.

Date and time index the referents.  "Suppose I could see-hear-feel this, what would I see or hear or feel? To what kind of dimension of reality does this word refer? In what domain?" Find out to what field the term applies.

b) Explore the referent.

What is the referent of this or that word? Does it exist in the world of physics or in the world of the mind? Does this linguistic symbol reference anything that has actual or logical existence?

Identification (Id.)

We take one of our neuro-linguistic states (e.g. love, joy, fear, anger, disgust, confidence, trustworthiness, manic-depression, etc.) and identify with them. The Korzybski language distinction of identification grows out of the tiniest nominalization ('is').

"I am... X"

"He is an X"

"She's nothing more than X!"

The "is" of predication involves predicating or asserting qualities. These 'ises' show how one of the central linguistic makers of identification shows up in the 'to be' verbs (is, am, are, was, were, be, being, been, etc.).  David Bourland, Jr. has called the 'to be' verbs, "the deity mode" of thinking and speaking. "This is that!" "That's how it is!"

The damaging 'ises' thus take two primary forms: (1) the 'is' of identity ('I am...' 'You are...' 'That is...') and (2) the 'is' of predication ('The apple is red').

Meta-modeling Identification:

a) Extensionalize.

"What specifically are you a failure at?" "How does his experience make him a drunk?"

b) Differentiate realities.

"How do these things that seem similar, and which you have identified, actually differ?"

c) Sub-scripting words with time-date or space-locations.

We index by sub-scripting. When we subscript we are forced to deal with the absolute individuality of every event at every time. Since the world and ourselves consists of processes, ever Smith 1950 exists as quite a different person from Smith 1995.

Science Aristotle , 300 BC  differs radically from Science Einstein, 1903. What specific behaviours, actions, responses, etc. would we see, hear, and feel?

This individualizing assist us in making distinctions. Depression 1991 differs from depression 1994, depression Bob differs from depression Susan. By time-indexing, we specify the date of our verbal statements. We can do the same with person-indexing, place-indexing, and even process-indexing.

d) Practice silence at the unspeakable levels.

If our map only seeks to represent the territory and never 'is' the territory, then as we learn to 'stop the world' in terms of the chatty internal dialogue that runs in our heads or even the rush of our neurological VAK language (our sights, sounds, and sensations) we give ourselves a chance to sense and feel the gulf between the territory and our maps. In his neuro-linguistic trainings, Korzybski had people point at an object and maintain silence to anchor this awareness. 'Silence on the objective levels' installs a strategy of psycho-physical delay so that we don't react without thinking.

Train yourself to recognize 'the unspeakable level of experience.' This process describes a central technique for eliminating the 'is' of identity. In the place of repressing or suppressing,

"... we teach silence on the objective level in general ... Any bursting into speech is not repressed; a gesture of the hand to ... the objects, or action, or happenings, or feelings. Such a procedure has a most potent semantic effect. It gives a semantic jar; but this jar is not repression, but the realization of a most fundamental, natural, structural fact of evolution."

Notice how closely this technique corresponds to the early NLP technique of accessing the 'stopping the world' state. Stopping the world means stopping one's racing and disquiet internal dialogue. Doing this moves us from the meta-level of language representations and brings us back down to the wondrous sensory rich world prior to our languaging. This intense sensory awareness state gives us a chance and space to create a new mapping as we language our experiences in new and different ways.

Personalizing (Per.)

Emotionalizing: Refers to using our emotions for gathering and processing information. In emotionalizing, we over-value 'emotions,' we take counsel of them and we treat them as information-gathering mechanisms rather than a reflection of how our values compare with how we perceive things. "I feel it, so it must be true." Emotionalizing confuses internally generated and externally generated experience, so that instead of simply experiencing an emotion, we use it as evidence of a corresponding negative external situation.

Emotions actually describe a relationship -- a relationship in our minds-bodies. Emotions emerge from, and reflect, the relationship between our Model of the world and our Experience of the world. The difference between these two subjective awarenesses is what we experience as an emotion.

"What a sad life this is." - "What about it makes you feel sad?"

Personalizing: Refers to perceiving things, especially the actions of others, as specifically targeted toward us and/or as an attack on us. When we 'take things personally,' we personalize.

In personalization, a person believes that he or she stands responsible for external situations for which they could not possibly stand responsible. "It's my fault the picnic got rained out!" From that way of sorting things, the person then jumps to the conclusion that if they so perceive things, they should feel such (emotionalize it). In 'emotional reasoning,' a person believes that because he or she feels a negative emotion, there must exist a corresponding negative external situation.

"Tom's making a lot of noise because he's angry at me."

"I'm under constant attack by society, finances and relationships." - "Is someone attacking you right now? Can you point them out to me?"

Meta-modeling Personalization:

a) Inquire about how the process works.

"How do you know to treat it as personal rather than impersonal?"

b) Explore other possibilities.

c) Go meta to explore the personalization as a possible habitual meta-frame.

"Do you typically read the behaviour or words of others as saying something about yourself? Do you tend to be sensitive about yourself regarding such things?"

Metaphors (Mp)

'To bear' (phorein) + 'above, over, about' (meta).

In Metaphor-ing, we take one thing and use it as a model for how to think about, perceive, and understand another thing.

When we look at language at both the level of individual words and statements, metaphors are everywhere. They lurk in the corners. They often visit us like angels unawares. At yet other times, we have to smoke them out.

Why are there so many metaphors in our language? Because language itself is metaphorical; it operates via the structure of metaphors. Ultimately, how we create language and use language is by presenting various symbols that stand for something else. This explains the metaphorical or symbolic nature of language itself.