Robert Dilts - Sleight of Mouth - The Magic of Conversational Belief Change

204 SLEIGHT OF MOUTH

Non Verbal Meta Messages Significantly Influence Our
Internal States and the Interpretation of Verbal Messages

People generally focus on the verbal aspects of communica-
tion, and are frequently unaware of the non verbal portions
of communication. When working with Sleight of Mouth, it
is essential to pay attention to the non verbal meta messages
which accompany our words. The right words, said in the
wrong tone of voice, or with the wrong facial expression, can
produce the opposite of what we intend.

The degree of congruence between our non verbal mes-
sages with our words primarily comes from our own congru-
ence about what we are saying - i.e., the congruence between
"message" and "messenger." Thus, the internal state we are
in while we are speaking is as important as the internal state
of the listener. Learning to observe for non verbal cues, and
to pay closer attention to your own internal state, can greatly
increase your effectiveness in using Sleight of Mouth to
positively impact the beliefs of others.

Chapter 8

Thought Viruses
and the

Meta Structure
of Beliefs

206 SLEIGHT OF MOUTH

The Meta Structure of Beliefs

In the course of this book, we have explored a number of
the dimensions of our experience that are influenced by our
beliefs, and which are also involved in forming and sustain-
ing our beliefs.

Our sensory experience is what provides the raw mate-
rials from which we construct our maps of the world. Beliefs
are generalizations drawn from the data of our experience,
and are typically updated and corrected by experience. As a
model of our experience, beliefs necessarily delete and distort
aspects of the experiences that they have been developed to
represent. This gives beliefs the potential to limit us as
easily as empower us.

Values are what give our beliefs and experience meaning.
They are the higher level 'positive intentions' which the
belief has been established to support or reflect. Beliefs
connect values to our experiences through statements of
'cause-effect1 and 'complex equivalence'.

Expectations provide the motivation for maintaining a
particular generalization or belief. Expectations relate to the
consequences that we anticipate will come from holding a
particular belief. The particular consequences a belief or
generalization produces determines the usefulness of the
belief.

Our internal states act as both filters upon our experi-
ence and the impetus for our actions. Our internal states are
often the container or foundation supporting a particular
belief or generalization, and determine the emotional energy
invested in sustaining the belief.

It is the interconnections between these various compo-
nents of our life experience that forms what Richard Bandler
refers to as the "fabric of reality." The function of our beliefs
is to provide key links between these basic elements that
make up our map of the world.

THOUGHT VIRUSES AND THE 207
META STRUCTURE OF BELIEFS

Consider, for example, a child learning to ride a bicycle.
An empowering belief such as, "I can learn," might link
together key values associated with learning—-such as Tun'
and 'self improvement'—with an internal state of 'confi-
dence', and the expectation that, "I will get better and
better." These provide the motivation and impetus for the
child to keep trying, even though he or she might fall quite
frequently. As the child is able to experience longer periods
in which he or she maintains balance before falling, it
reinforces the generalization, "I can learn," as well as the
state of confidence, the expectation of improvement and the
values of fun and self improvement.

Our Beliefs are Generalizations Which Link Together
Experiences, Values, Internal States and Expectations, and

Form the Fabric of Our Reality

208 SLEIGHT OF MOUTH

Healthy beliefs maintain their connection with all of these
various dimensions. Our beliefs naturally shift and update
themselves as we go through changes in values, expectations,
internal states, and as we have new experiences.

Limiting beliefs can arise as a result of a shift in any one of
these components to a negative formulation or 'problem
frame'. Once established, limiting beliefs can exert an
influence on any or all of these various components. For
instance, let's say that a child who is learning to ride a
bicycle has an older brother or sister who is already able to
ride a bike competently. While this may provide a strong
motivation for the younger child to learn to ride, he or she
may also develop inappropriate expectations. The child may
expect to ride as well as his or her older sibling, and compare
his or her performance negatively to that of the older child.
Because the younger child's performance does not match his
or hep expectations, the child my shift into a problem frame
or failure frame, leading to an internal state of frustration.
In addition to producing uncomfortable feelings, the negative
internal state may effect the child's performance, causing
him or her to fall more frequently. The child may also begin
to build the expectation, "I will fall again," feeding a self-
fulfilling prophesy. Eventually, in order to avoid continued
discomfort and frustration, the child may establish the belief,
"I will never be able to ride a bicycle," and quit trying to ride
any longer.

THOUGHT VIRUSES AND THE
META STRUCTURE OF BELIEFS

Limiting Beliefs Create a Troblem Frame'
When limiting beliefs and generalizations stay connected
with the intentions and experiences from which they have
been established, the deletions and distortions eventually
become updated or corrected as a result of new experiences,
changes in internal state, and revised expectations. New
data or 'counter examples' that do not fit with the generaliza-
tion will lead the person to reconsider the validity of his or
her limiting belief.
If a child who has built the generalization, "I can't ride a
bike," is encouraged and supported to continue to try riding

210 SLEIGHT OF MOUTH

(and is able to perceive his or her "failure" as "feedback") he
or she will eventually learn to maintain balance, and begin to
have some success. This will typically lead the child to begin
to think, "Well, maybe I can learn this after all" With
continued success, the child will reverse his or her earlier
belief, naturally refraining it on his or her own. The child
becomes more 'open to believe' that he or she is capable of
learning to ride the bicycle, and 'open to doubt' his or her
perceived limitations.

THOUGHT VIRUSES AND THE 211
META STRUCTURE OF BELIEFS

Thought Viruses

Limiting beliefs arise from generalizations, deletions and
distortions that have become placed in a 'problem frame',
'failure frame', or 'impossibility frame*. Such beliefs become
even more limiting and difficult to change when they are
separated from the experiences, values, internal states and
expectations from which they were derived. When this
happens, the belief can become perceived as some type of
disassociated "truth" about reality. This leads people to
begin to view the belief as "the territory" rather than a
particular "map," whose purpose is to help us effectively
navigate our way through some portion of our experiential
territory. This situation can become even further exagger-
ated when the limiting belief is not even one that we have
formed from our own experiences, but which has been im-
posed upon us by others.

A fundamental assumption of NLP is that everyone has his
or her own map of the world. People's maps can be quite
different, depending upon their backgrounds, their society,
their culture, their professional training and their personal
history. A large part of what NLP is about is how to deal with
the fact that people have different maps of the world. A
major challenge in our lives is how to coordinate our maps of
the world with the maps of others.

For example, people have different beliefs about the body's
capabilities to heal and about what 'should be done' and 'can
be done' in relation to healing themselves and others. People
have maps about what's possible with respect to physical
healing and what healing is, and they live according to those
maps. Sometimes these maps can be quite limiting; leading
to confrontations and conflicts of beliefs.

Consider the woman who, when she discovered that she
had metastatic breast cancer, started to explore what she
might do to mentally help promote her own self healing. Her

212 SLEIGHT OF MOUTH

surgeon told her that 'all that mind-body healing stuff was 'a
bunch of poppycock' which would probably just 'drive you
crazy'. This was obviously not a belief that the woman had
arrived at as a result of her own experience. Yet, because the
man was her doctor, his beliefs exerted a great deal of
influence on the decisions made with regard to her health.
Whether she wanted to or not, she had to contend with the
doctor's belief as a factor in her own belief system (as a
person would have to deal with being exposed to germs if the
person were around someone else who was sick).

Notice that the belief expressed by the doctor was stated in
a problem frame, and not connected to any particular posi-
tive intention, sensory data, internal state, nor to any ex-
pected or desired consequences related to accepting the
belief. It was simply presented as athe way it is." The
validity or usefulness of the belief could thus not easily be
examined. The woman was placed in a position in which she
either had to either agree with her doctor (and thus accept
the limiting belief) or to fight with him about it - which could
produce negative consequences with respect to her health
care.

This kind of belief, especially when presented as the 'right
map of the world', can become what could be called a 'thought
virus'. A 'thought virus' is a special class of limiting beliefs
that can severely interfere with one's own or other's efforts to
heal or improve.

In essence, a thought virus has become disconnected from
the surrounding 'meta structure* which provides the context
and purpose of the belief, and determines its 'ecology'. Unlike
a typical limiting belief, which can be updated or corrected as
a result of experience, thought viruses, are based on unspo-
ken assumptions (which are typically other limiting beliefs).
When this happens, the thought virus becomes its own self-
validating "reality" instead of serving a larger reality.

THOUGHT VIRUSES AND THE 213
META STRUCTURE OF BELIEFS

A Thought Virus* is a Belief that has Become Disconnected
from the Other Cognitive and Experiential Processes from

which it was Built

Thus, thought viruses are not easily corrected or updated
by new data or counter examples coming from experience.
Rather, the other beliefs and presuppositions upon which the
thought virus is based (and which hold it in place) must be
identified and transformed. These other, more fundamental
presuppositions and beliefs, however, are not usually obvious
in the surface structure of the belief.

As an example, the woman mentioned above was working
as a nurse for a doctor in general practice. Instead of saying
that she was being foolish like her surgeon did, the doctor
that was her employer took her aside and told her, "You
know, if you really care about your family you won't leave
them unprepared." While this was less confrontive than the
surgeon had been, it was actually more of a potential thought
virus than saying directly "that's a bunch of 'poppycock'".

214 SLEIGHT OF MOUTH

Because a good deal of the meaning of the message is implied
and not stated, it is more difficult to recognize, "That's just
his opinion". You think, "Yes, I do care about my family. No,
I don't want to leave them unprepared." But what's not
stated, what's not on the surface, is that "leave them" means
"die". The presupposition of the statement is that 'you are
going to die'. And the implication of the statement was that
she should 'stop this nonsense and get ready to die' or it
would make it more difficult for her family. If you really care
about your family, you won't keep trying to get well because
you'll just leave them unprepared.

What makes it so much of a potential thought virus is that

it implies that the Tight' way and the only way to be a good

and loving mother and wife is to accept that you are going to

die and prepare yourself and your family for t h a t inevitabil-

ity. It suggests that to try to regain one's health when one's

death is so immanent is essentially just being selfish and

uncaring toward one's family. It would build false hope,

potentially drain financial resources, and lead to sadness and

disappointment. r

Such 'thought viruses' can 'infect' one's mind and nervous
system just as a physical virus can infect the body or a
computer virus can infect a computer system leading to
confusion and malfunctions. Just as the programming of a
computer, or a whole system of computers, can be damaged
by a 'computer virus', our nervous systems may be capable of
being 'infected' and damaged by 'thought viruses'.

Biologically, a Virus' is actually a little piece of genetic
material. Our genetic code is our body's physical 'program'. A
virus is an incomplete chunk of 'program'. It's not really a
living thing. That's why you can't kill a virus. You can't kill
it or poison it because it's not alive. It enters into the cells of
its xiost', who, if not immune to the virus, unwittingly makes
'a home' for it and even helps to reproduce and m a k e more of
the virus.