The Meta-Model of Manipulation
How to Defend Against the Language of Manipulation
Neurolinguistic Programming is a lot of syllables.
Often, people find lots of syllables intimidating.
A long word like “incomprehensibility” or “epistemological” can cause many people to freeze or get stuck because it contains multiple ideas or concepts that we need to separate or “parse” to understand fully. Eventually — once we fully understand the meaning of a word — we don’t get stuck on that word anymore, and it becomes a part of our vocabulary (or lexicon).
Like multi-syllable words, people who practice — practitioners — neurolinguistic programming analyze the patterns of words that people use to form and communicate ideas and hack those ideas using words. By parsing the phrases and sentences used to assemble sentences, NLP practitioners can better understand how speakers construct ideas and — in some cases — reframe that person’s “reality.”
Oxford Rhodes Scholar Rachel Maddow uses the Mere-Agreement Frame and multiple cause-effect complex equivalencies (amplified with fear) to PsyOp a world into acting against their best interests. Once you learn the basic patterns, you can use this video to create an NLP drinking game, and you’ll be hammered in 11:06.
The Meta-Model
Understanding how we use words to deconstruct “reality.”
If broken down into enough detail, we all have very complicated lives. If I were to ask you to describe your day — in the most detail — it would take longer for you to describe it than it took to live it. Think about how many strokes of your toothbrush you used to clean your teeth, how many steps to the front door, and how many text messages you responded to today. The number of details we sort through in our lives is innumerable, yet — if asked — somehow we remember them.
If I were to ask you how your day was going, you might respond, “Great, thanks.” In most circumstances, people do not consciously compare the question “How was your day?” with the myriad of things they did that day unless something out-of-the-ordinary happened. The complete collection of experiences we have in our memory is what linguists call our deep structure.1
The process we use in our day-to-day lives of picking and choosing our experiences to communicate is something linguists refer to as the Meta-model.2
The Meta-model is a process of deletion, distortion, and generalization that we all use to turn the deep structure of our memory and experience into language; our words, tone, and expressions.
As I type this post, I am actively using the Meta-model. I am accessing my total knowledge of Neurolinguistic programming (NLP) and deleting, distorting, and generalizing that deep structure knowledge and experience to fit it into a sentence I assume you, the kind reader, can understand.
It is something that most of us are doing constantly. Often, the most apparent symptom of people who have autism or Asperger’s syndrome is a malfunction in their meta-model processing. They have a hard time deleting, distorting, or generalizing their experiences.
To summarize, we live with innumerable experiences and communicate them with others by converting them into language, where we delete, distort, and generalize them.
Generalization Example: The “Universal Quantifier”
We all use words like “all.”
All, every, always, everyone, everything, no, nothing, never, none, and nobody are words that express generalizations. They often imply that something applies to all members of a group or category. These words are frequently used in language to make broad, sweeping statements.
Actively listening for universal quantifiers is one of the easiest ways to start to recognize language patterns.
Did you notice that “easiest” is a universal quantifier?
Just because something is a generalization does not mean it is not true; it’s simply an indicator that it may not be.
Lies, Axioms, and other forms of Fake thinking
An axiom is a foundational statement or principle that is accepted as true without requiring proof, often serving as the basis for reasoning or argumentation in a particular field. Axioms are typically self-evident or universally agreed upon within a given context.
Many of us believe axioms to be true or universal because we have faith in the sources who taught us them (teachers, professors, parents, TikTok, etc.). “Sages” and significant historical figures often present axioms as “wisdom.”
Linguistically, however, many axioms present themselves with a particular pattern that reveals flaws in logic, or, as the Greeks refer to it, the logos (λόγος). Logos is a powerful concept, and it is appended to the end of many sciences, such as technology, biology, geology, and zoology, indicating “the science of.”
Logos has many meanings but essentially refers to how words or language can communicate knowledge. The science of how we know things is called epistemology.
When we “think critically,” we apply our logos (λόγος), our world contextualized by words, to determine the “truth” or further our understanding of what we are considering.
When we do that linguistically and look at how ideas are constructed, something about many axioms becomes evident. They are not necessarily true, accurate, or correct.
On close examination and application of logos, many axioms have the same linguistic structure as bullshit. That Meta-Model structure is called a cause-effect complex equivalence distortion. (A lot of syllables, I know).
A Cause-Effect Distortion occurs when someone assumes that one thing directly causes another, even without clear evidence of the connection. Cause-effect is the “if/then” part of the pattern.
A Complex Equivalence Distortion happens when someone claims that two things are equivalent or mean the same, even if they don’t. Complex Equivalence is the “because” part of the pattern.
A couple of other ways to think about it are:
“if X, then Y because Z.”
“if/then=because.”
Axiom Examples:
Aristotle (Politics): "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few."
Cause-Effect: Assumes prioritizing the collective good directly leads to the best outcomes.
Complex Equivalence: Equates "many's good" with "right decision," overlooking the complexities of justice or individual needs.
Marcus Aurelius (Meditations): "What stands in the way becomes the way."
Cause-Effect: Assumes that obstacles directly cause growth or progress.
Complex Equivalence: Equates "obstacles" with "path to success," which might not hold in every situation.
Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals): "Moral worth comes only from actions done out of duty, not inclination."
Cause-Effect: Assumes that acting out of duty directly causes moral worth.
Complex Equivalence: Equates "acting from duty" with "moral value," which could disregard the role of intentions or consequences.
The problem with axioms, rhetoric, political speech, sales pitches, talking-head monologues, and other forms of bullshit is that, often, the simple act of agreeing with the statement FEELS LIKE THINKING.
You find yourself saying, “That makes sense,” and then keep scrolling through Twitter. You may repeat those words the next day as if they are your own.
Applying logos (λόγος), your critical thinking skills, to recognize linguistic patterns is the first step to understanding how words are used as weapons to frame our reality on the battlefield of epistemological war.
You don’t need to be a hypnotist to learn these patterns; in the same way, you don’t need to be a player to understand football.
How Media & Politics Hypnotize Us to Reframe Our Reality
I became interested in NLP because I wanted to understand how the media and politics were manipulating my beliefs. In a conversation with NLP instructor Matteo Morelli, I mentioned that I wanted to learn NLP to understand how it is used in media and politics.
His response astonished me: “That’s easy; they all use the same patterns.”
Morelli described the cause-effect and complex equivalence distortions that, when combined, form the linguistic equivalent of a house of cards.
To recap, a Cause-Effect Distortion occurs when someone assumes that one thing directly causes another, even without clear evidence of the connection.
Example: "If you get vaccinated for a disease, you are protected from that disease."
This assumes vaccination guarantees protection without accounting for variables like vaccine efficacy, adverse reactions, or individual immune responses.
Again, a Complex Equivalence Distortion happens when someone claims that two things are equivalent or mean the same, even if they don’t.
Example: "Vaccinated people will not get sick and infect others."
This equates being vaccinated with absolute prevention of illness and transmission, which isn’t universally accurate.
Combination of Both: When these distortions are combined, they create overly simplistic and potentially misleading conclusions.
Example: "If you get vaccinated for a disease, you are protected from that disease and will not get sick or infect others."
This statement blends cause-effect assumptions with a false equivalence, ignoring nuances like breakthrough infections or varying immune responses.
By understanding and identifying these patterns, we can better navigate complex discussions and avoid the pitfalls of oversimplified reasoning.
The Power of Identifying the Patterns
Identifying linguistic patterns unlocks a superpower. That superpower allows anyone who sees the pattern to consider alternative frames of reality and, with practice, reframe that reality. It’s a superpower because you don’t need to be an expert in whatever domain you happen to be in. You don’t have to be an expert medicine, nuclear physics or economics to find questions that can lead you closer to truths.
In the case of the example: "If you get vaccinated for a disease, you are protected from that disease and will not get sick or infect others," you might consider these questions about the cause-effect:
What evidence supports the idea that vaccination guarantees protection?
This question encourages the person to examine their assumption about the direct relationship between vaccination and protection.
Are there any situations where people got vaccinated but still got sick?
This introduces exceptions to challenge the absolutism of the cause-effect link.
What other factors might contribute to being protected from a disease?
This expands the conversation to consider variables like immunity, health status, or other preventative measures.
Or regarding the complex equivalence:
What do you mean by “protected”? Does it mean never getting sick or something else?
This helps unpack what “protected” signifies and whether it aligns with scientifically reproducible understanding. (A lot of syllables, I know).
Are there other ways vaccinated people might still get sick or infect others?
This explores scenarios that contradict the equivalence between vaccination, infecting others, and complete prevention.
How does vaccination relate to reducing symptoms or severity, even if it doesn’t guarantee no infection?
This reframes the focus on the nuanced benefits of vaccination, such as symptom mitigation.
Or the combination of the two:
How might the relationship between vaccination, protection, and transmission vary depending on the disease or individual?
This invites a broader perspective, recognizing complexity rather than absolutes.
Why is it recommended if vaccination reduces risk but doesn’t eliminate it and may introduce other risks?
This reframes the statement toward a more realistic and communicative stance.
What assumptions are we making about “protection” and “not getting sick”? Could those assumptions be incomplete?
This invites self-reflection on the underlying assumptions driving the statement.
To challenge the distortions in the statement and explore the deeper structure of the person's thoughts, here are some NLP-inspired questions designed to clarify, reframe, or explore the assumptions:
Challenging the Cause-Effect Distortion
What evidence supports the idea that vaccination guarantees protection?
This question encourages the person to examine their assumption about the direct relationship between vaccination and protection.
Are there any situations where people got vaccinated but still got sick?
This introduces exceptions to challenge the absolutism of the cause-effect link.
What other factors might contribute to being protected from a disease?
This expands the conversation to consider variables like lifestyle choices, immunity, health status, or other preventative measures.
Combining and Reframing
How might the relationship between vaccination, protection, and transmission vary depending on the disease or individual?
This invites a broader perspective, recognizing complexity rather than absolutes.
If vaccination reduces risk but doesn’t eliminate it, how might we communicate this more accurately?
This reframes the statement toward a more realistic and communicative stance.
What assumptions are we making about “protection” and “not getting sick”? Could those assumptions be incomplete?
This invites the person to self-reflect on the underlying assumptions driving their statement.
Purpose of These Questions
Clarify Assumptions: Reveal the deeper meaning by key terms like “protected” or “will not infect.”
Challenge Absolutism: Break down overly rigid cause-effect and complex equivalence beliefs.
Encourage Exploration: Open up a space for more nuanced and evidence-based thinking.
By addressing these distortions thoughtfully, critical thinking can be applied to evolve toward a more balanced and informed perspective.
You Can Do It
The purpose of all these examples is to show that by identifying the cause-effect complex equivalence in the language being used, we can recognize our own cognitive dissonance, determine the cause — the weaponized patterns being used against us — and protect ourselves with the right questions, whether or not we are “experts” in a domain (like medicine).
A Note About Experts
Part of the centuries-long program of epistemological warfare waged against humanity is replacing the critical thinking exercises described above with the opinions of so-called “experts,” professionals whose names are spelled out with letters before and after their names (e.g., “Dr., Professor, PhD, etc.”).
We have been taught that critical thinking (Logos λόγος) can be out-sourced to these people, and that is all well and good when a) they have our best interest in mind, b) they don’t have any ulterior motives (like profit or power), and most importantly c) they know what they are talking about.
Recent history shows that all three of these reasons have led most critical thinkers to seriously question the credentials and motivations of so-called experts and wonder how we can protect ourselves in our current situation.
Recognizing a few linguistic patterns can accelerate critical thinking more effectively than other methods. A significant percentage of the 3,000 formal and informal logical fallacies listed by the Ethical Skeptic on his website are variations of cause-effect, complex-equivalency, or a combination of both. It is reasonable to assume that most of these fallacies are addressed in some fashion by the ten meta-model patterns. Therefore, ask yourself: Is it easier to learn 3,000 formal and informal logical fallacies or just ten linguistic patterns?
Meta-Model Patterns
Here’s a comprehensive list of the 10 Meta Model patterns—divided into Deletions, Distortions, and Generalizations—with descriptions and examples often encountered in media or from political pundits and newscasters:
Deletions (Leaving out crucial information)
Simple Deletion
Description: Omitting key details that are necessary for understanding.
Example: "This policy will solve the crisis."
Challenge: "Which crisis are you referring to? What specifically will it solve?"
Unspecified Referential Index
Description: Using vague terms like "they" or "people" without specifying who.
Example: "People are saying your comments are racist and anti-Semitic."
Challenge: "Who specifically is saying this? What comments are you referring to?"
Unspecified Verb
Description: Using a verb without clarifying how the action is performed.
Example: "This proposal helps communities thrive."
Challenge: "How does it help communities thrive? What does 'thrive' mean in this context?"
Lack of Comparison
Description: Making a comparative statement without specifying what it’s being compared to.
Example: "This is a better solution."
Challenge: "Better than what? Compared to what other solutions?"
Distortions (Misrepresenting or altering reality)
Cause-Effect
Description: Assuming one thing directly causes another without evidence.
Example: "If we don’t act now, the economy will collapse."
Challenge: "How does inaction directly lead to collapse? What other factors might be involved?"
Complex Equivalence
Description: Equating two unrelated ideas as if they mean the same.
Example: "If you disagree with this policy, you don’t care about the environment."
Challenge: "How does disagreeing with this policy mean someone doesn’t care about the environment?"
Presuppositions
Description: Assuming something as true within the structure of a statement.
Example: "Winning the next election will change the direction of the country."
Challenge: "What evidence suggests that things have changed? How are you measuring 'Winning'?"
Generalizations (Making sweeping statements)
Universal Quantifiers
Description: Using words like “all,” “everyone,” or “never” to generalize.
Example: "Everyone agrees that this is the best solution."
Challenge: "Who specifically agrees? Can you name any exceptions?"
Modal Operators of Necessity/Possibility
Description: Statements implying what must or must not be done.
Example: "We have to implement this policy to ensure progress."
Challenge: "Why do we have to? Are there other ways to ensure progress?"
Nominalizations
Description: Turning actions or processes into static nouns, making them less precise.
Example: "More choice means more freedom."
Challenge:
"What does 'more choice' look like in this context? Can you give specific examples?"
"What do you mean by 'freedom'? How is 'freedom' defined here?"
"How is the act of having more choices directly connected to increasing freedom? Are there situations where more choice might not lead to more freedom?"
Why These Matter
Clarity: By challenging these patterns, we clarify meaning and uncover missing or distorted details.
Critical Thinking (Logos λόγος): Identifying these patterns helps navigate political rhetoric and avoid being misled.
Dialogue Improvement: Questions based on these patterns promote deeper, more meaningful discussions.
Where to learn more
Recognizing and reframing cause-effect complex equivalencies is well documented art known as Sleigh-of-Mouth by linguistic hypnotist, Robert Dilts. His latest book Sleight of Mouth Volume II: How Words Change Worlds is highly recommended for anyone who wants to learn more about recognizing and reframing the bullshit we are bombarded with every day.
Matteo Morelli offers NLP training, and while it is targeted more at people who are learning to become hypnotherapists, there is still great value provided by his books, YouTube videos and online courses. Note: I have no business relationship with Morelli, his content, like Dilts, has been invaluable to me in getting my arms around NLP.
Video Fair Use
COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER UNDER SECTION 107 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT 1976, ALLOWANCE IS MADE FOR "FAIR USE" FOR PURPOSES SUCH AS CRITICISM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING, TEACHING, SCHOLARSHIP, AND RESEARCH.
FAIR USE IS A USE PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT STATUTE THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE INFRINGING. NON PROFIT, EDUCATIONAL OR PERSONAL USE TIPS THE BALANCE IN FAVOR OF FAIR USE.
Noam Chomsky first defined the concept of "deep structure" in linguistics. He introduced it as part of his Transformational-Generative Grammar theory in the late 1950s and early 1960s, particularly in works like Syntactic Structures (1957) and Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965).
John Grinder and Richard Bandler first introduced the Meta-Model, the co-founders of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), in their book The Structure of Magic: A Book About Language and Therapy (1975).
Well broken down and presented (for me). "Often" & "Many" is a helpful start (for me). "We" need to parse? Yup. We who chose to subscribe & read need to, so I'm OK w/ that "we". "We all have complicated lives"? Nah. There are some who are sleepwalking through life. But again, perhaps all your kind readers all complicate our lives with deeper thinking.
Agree w/ the complete collection of a day's experiences & deletion, distortion & generalization. Didn't realize it 30+ years ago, but dinner table question to my 3 kids wasn't "How was your day?". We asked for high point and low point. It was daunting for us to resist deleting, distorting & generalizing; perhaps impossible.
Your using the upstream insanity of the lockdown was (for me) very useful. Who among us escaped that universal insanity? Slogans like "Trust the Science", indeed slogans in general were everywhere (in my experience). For example, there were no less than 120 yard signs praising hospital staff as "heroes" & affirming courageous behaviors like showing up for work. For the remote-working, protected administrators, fact were indisputable facts. Short of mowing down the signs I made no figurative dent in the prevailing "reality".
Your Axiom Examples & Pattern Identifiers have been helpful (for me). Gentle requests for clarification barely put a dent in most of my family, friends & associates. The longevity of my confrontational, impatient "style" hasn't optimally positioned me to credibly try new approaches! I, however, find it fortifying and clarifying to mindfully watch for BS tactics before reacting.
One final thought, perhaps off-topic: I was taught to translate shorthand descriptors into phenomenological communications. It was as basic as, for example, "The patient is sleeping" vs "The patient is in bed, recumbent and not moving" (which could mean deceased if "regular respirations" isn't added). Another might be, "The patient was violent" vs "The patient was screaming threats with a knife in hand moving toward others and ...") Likewise, consumers (in this case patients) who'd say, "I'm depressed" would be asked to flesh out what they meant by "depressed". The same was useful for people who'd say, "I'm suicidal", which conveys little about the perspectives that drive toward despair, rage, revenge or whatever outcome they sought.
Thank you, Peter, for working so diligently on your readers' enlightenment. What else is there for us to do in the traffic insane pace of our information superhighway except to slide out of the passing lane and avoid getting rear ended in the breakdown lane? Off ramps!
Thanks for this work. I think it's worthy of printing to add to my trove.
This article reminds me of a men's retreat I went on that had a ban on using the words " you" and " we" so the participants the participants had to replace it with " I".
It wasn't until I went back into the world that I noticed how much I had changed from doing this.
Intially I tried to ask people to not include me in their language of " you" and " we" and I received a unanimous offended NO!.
I did not concent to be included in these people generalisations so shouldn't I be offended?😁
I cringe when I hear people speak or write this way now but I reckon that the impotence of the " we the people" slogun and some individuals that preech thruth more than discuss it, is helping some people come around to taking personal responsibility for the inference of the words they choose.
There are exceptions to the rule but not many.
Best $2000 I ever spent. ( Not joking)