From: exudeb@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Breeding, xt-dGR,)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: NLP, Smithsonian delirium
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:59:59 GMT
Reply-To: exudeb@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson TX


In article 18ohcaINNcm2@smaug.West.Sun.COM, dab@ism.isc.com (David A.
Butterfield) writes:

>"Briefly, Metaphor Theory explains how deep cognitive models can
>be represented and manipulated using conscious, metaphorical models.
>A subject (or his therepist) identifies a (possibly nonconscious)
>cognitive model that he wishes to change.  He then builds an
>association between that internal model and some other metaphorical
>model that he is already able to manipulate.  (Often the metaphorical
>model is some contrived manipulation of physical objects.)  Once
>the association between the two models has been established in the
>subject's mind, he then makes the desired change to his internal
>model by making the analogous change in his metaphorical model.
>The mechanism by which the mind translates the changes made to the
>metaphorical model back into the internal model is not yet fully
>understood."
>
>"(1) Fritz, Dubaldi K. "The Structure and Editing of Cognitive
>     Entities", MIT Press, June 2017"
>-- 

Dave,

I agree that this is the direction that the understanding of the mind
needs to take.  I would go even further and say that the cognitive
models are themselves metaphorical.  Sometimes the metaphorical model
is very close to "reality," and sometimes it is clearly "metaphorical."

We have long recognized that people's language is frequently
metaphorical.  NLP suggests that we take that language as "literal,"
and we frequently find that doing so is very effective in understanding
and changing people.  It is only a small step then to say that this
metaphorical language is a literal report of the metaphorical models in
the mind.  Personally, I came to this understanding a couple of years
ago, began operating as if it were true, and my NLP work immediately
became much easier and more effective.

An example: the NLP work on timelines has established that most people
organize their memories in chronological order along a "line," and that
this line has spatial length, location, and direction (usually outside
the person's body).  This is very clearly a spatial metaphor for a
non-spatial "reality."  The timeline can have any shape and location,
and the particular way a person organizes it will have an effect on how
they experience time and memory.  There are also other ways that some
people organize their memories, and their metaphorical models also have
an effect on their experience.  I have encountered one person who
apparently did not have a systematic way of organizing her memories,
and she experienced life pretty much as a random set of experiences.
Another interesting aspect of this is that people can easily
"reorganize" their memories, simply by adopting a different spatial
metaphor.

One interesting area of research is in linguistics.  See:

Lakoff and Johnson. (1980?). _Metaphors we live by_. (lots of examples
of everyday use of metaphorical language)

Lakoff. (1985?). _Women, fire, and dangerous things. (study of how the
mind categorizes things)

And then, bringing in some additional disciplines:

Johnson. (1989?). The body in the mind. (he argues that because the
mind has a body, we all have common and pervasive direct experience of
spatial relationships such as inside/outside, above/below,
connected/disconnected, moving along a path, etc. and that "everything
else" is modeled metaphorically using these basic "schemas."

As an aside, one might say that "insanity" of one degree or another
appears when we begin to take these internal metaphorical models as
"true" or "real."  "The map is not the territory."

For a philosophical study of the importance of mental models, in many
areas of science and mathematics, that are clearly "fictions," see:

Vaihinger. (1926?, for the English translation of the original German).
_The philosophy of "as_if"_.

Perhaps the one phenomenon that is responsible for both negative and
positive impressions of NLP is that the changes are "sudden,"
"amazing," "surprising," and seemingly "easy."   I think this is
related to, for example, the way we experience optical illusions.  The
common experience is that first you see it one way, and then "suddenly"
you see it the other.  Subjectively, the mind seems to cling to one way
of seeing the illusion (one metaphor), and then suddenly it jumps to
the other way.  Another example is the way we experience jokes.
Usually a joke depends on first creating one way of looking at
something, and then "suddenly" the punch line makes us see it in
another way.

My own NLP work again, has become more effective since I began
carefully preparing the subject for these "jumps."  I believe that the
change is more complete and more permanent if it occurs as a real
"surprise," if it seems to be a surprisingly different way of looking
at things.

The mind is an active entity, always trying to make sense of its
inputs.  And once it has a "useful" explanation for things, it will
cling to it, until it finds a "more useful" explanation.  Then it will
"jump" to that new explanation, and cling to it.

If you think about it, a metaphor is a very efficient way to
"understand" something.  Just a few words can convey a whole "model of
the world."  Some of the research in artificial intelligence (I'm
thinking of Roger Schank here) has emphasized the importance of
"explanation" and "stories."

Now obviously, I think that NLP is onto something important, and I
would like to see science investigate it seriously.  Unfortunately, the
common understanding of the scientific method seems to require that we
immediately throw out subjective things like metaphor, surprise, etc.
No wonder NLP doesn't "standup" to the scientific method.

I saw the statement recently that psychology knows how to eliminate the
"placebo effect."  On the other hand, NLP takes the approach that if
just thinking you are taking a powerful medicine can help 30% of the
patients, then the mind has powers we need to understand and enhance.
How can we boost that percentage to 60%, or 90%?

There must be a way to scientifically investigate what NLP does,
without first throwing out the very aspects that make it effective.

As I have tried to say here before, the "magic" is not in the words,
not in the technique.  The "magic" is in the human mind, and
everybody's mind is unique.  NLP is learning how to communicate with
those unique minds to make the "magic" happen more reliably.  So the
scientific method also has to be adapted in some way to allow for the
uniqueness of the subject.

How can this be done?  I don't know.  But I do know it won't happen as
long as NLPers and psychologists (and other scientists) just trade
barbs.  I saw a post today about an offer that Charles Faulkner (NLP
trainer) made to work with scientists to bridge this gap.  I know of
Charles' work, an article of his several years ago led me to _Metaphors
we live by_, and thereby, to all of the rest of the ideas I have
mentioned here.  I hope that someone with an open mind will take him up
on that offer.

Dave

P.S. I will be away from my network connection for the next two weeks.
And I would very much like to follow any discussion that may occur from
these remarks.  Please send a copy of any post you make on this subject
to me by email.  Otherwise, I cannot be sure of seeing them.  Thanks,
Dave