On entry-level NLP courses, students are often taught not to ask “Why?” when helping someone to solve a problem. And rightly so – human thought processes are very different from mechanical processes like production lines, not least because their workings…
Some wise words on leadership from Amma Theodora – an early Christian monastic who went into the Egyptian desert during the third and fourth centuries to live a life of prayer and contemplation. For ‘teacher’, also read leader, therapist, and…
Recently I co-facilitated a training workshop in appreciative coaching skills for rural deans, bishops and lay members of the Diocese of Chester. It was the first time I had worked with Anglican clergy and a more welcoming and stimulating audience…
We are often told to keep emotion out of our decision-making, and decide on entirely rational grounds. Of course, when emotions such as anger are too strong, they affect our ability to think rationally. But outside of these extreme circumstances,…
This is prompted by Richard Jones’ article on ‘LoA, online zombies and unwinnable arguments‘. I’m hoping that the ideas set out below might throw a bit of light on why both sides in this debate find the argument unwinnable. Just…
In today’s Observer Music Magazine, Bruce Springsteen talks about how we carry the past with us – to me, what he says carries interesting echoes both of James Hillman and Mike Ventura’s essential book We’ve Had a Hundred Year’s of Psychotherapy and the World’s Getting Worse, and Richard Bandler’s oft-quoted question (in NLP circles) “Who’s driving the bus?”
“There is no part of yourself that you leave behind; it can’t be done. You can’t remove any part of yourself, you can only manage the different parts of yourself. There’s a car, it’s filled with people. The 12-year-old kid’s in the back. So’s the 22-year-old. So is the 40-year-old. So is the 50-year-old guy that’s done pretty well, so’s the 40-year-old guy that likes to screw up. So’s the 30-year-old guy that wants to get his hands on his wheel and put the pedal to the metal, and drive you into a tree.
“That’s never going to change. Nobody’s leaving. Nobody’s getting thrown out by the roadside. The doors are shut, locked and sealed, until you go into your box. But who’s driving makes a really big difference about where the car is going. And if the wrong guy’s at the wheel, it’s crash time. You want the latest model of yourself at the wheel, the part of you that’s sussed some of this out and can drive you someplace where you want to go.”
More about Chris Argyris and Donald Schön’s ideas – following on from the “Espoused Theory and Theory-in-Use” posting. Our actions can be viewed as keeping some set of variables within acceptable limits. These variables are determined by our theory in…
How do we explain the discrepancies we observe in other people between what they say they believe, and how they act?
The theorists Chris Argyris and Donald Sch√∂n suggest that people have ‘mental maps’ of how to plan, implement and review their actions in given situations. It is these tacit, unexamined maps – a set of unconsciously held beliefs, assumptions and rules – which guide their actions, rather than the explanations that they give to themselves and others to make sense of what they do.
Argyris and Sch√∂n described the mental maps implicit in people’s actions as "theories in use", and their consciously held beliefs and explanations about their actions as "espoused theories".
Argyris suggests that bringing theory-in-use and espoused theory into line with each other will increase effectiveness. So how do we do this? "Double-Loop Learning" – which is discussed in my next entry.
Further reading: Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness
by Chris Argyris and Donald A. Sch√∂n
It seems that we are not as much in control of our selves and our decisions as our subjective experience would suggest. In fact, most of our decisions are made unconsciously by the "elephant" of our unconscious processing (in Jonathan Haidt’s useful metaphor from his brilliant book The Happiness Hypothesis) for while the main job of the "rider" of conscious awareness, who thinks and feels as if he is in control, is actually to make up justifications of the elephant’s behaviour after the event. These explanations may bear no relation to the actual reasons driving the unconscious processing.
This process, called ‘confabulation’, was first noticed in the 1880s when Russian psychiatrist Sergei Korsakoff observed some of his patients making up often impossible stories to cover gaps in their memories caused by previous alcohol abuse. It has also been noticed in people with brain damage and some stroke patients as they concoct elaborate alternative explanations for the effects of their impaired brain function.
You might think that confabulation happens only when the functioning of the brain has been in some way disrupted. However, research suggests that confabulation is something we all do, a lot of the time, because we don’t usually have access to the real (unconscious) reasons why we do things.
For example, Nisbett and Wilson’s classic experiment in 1977 asked people which of four garments laid out from left to right they preferred. 40% of people preferred the rightmost garment – as expected, since people will tend to choose the rightmost item in a series, other things being equal. When asked why they chose that one, the subjects talked about the quality of the weave and the vividness of the colour. But the items were identical! (Nisbett, R.E. and Wilson, T.D. (1977). "Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes". Psychological Review, Vol 84 pp 231-259.)
What’s more, if we change our minds about something, we tend to forget that our original opinion is different – as in Goethals and Reckman’s 1973 experiment (Psyblog: Our Secret Attitude Changes).
Helen Phillips’ illuminating article Mind fiction: Why your brain tells tall tales (New Scientist 07 October 2006) quotes more confabulation studies.
So what are the implications of these findings? They add support to the NLP idea that "why?" is an unproductive question in therapy or coaching; not only are the responses likely to be excuses and justifications, but they probably won’t even be an accurate representation of the person’s real beliefs and decision-making processes.
Also, they suggest that asking "why?" in usability tests will be a waste of time. The same might apply in other types of research like focus groups as well.
What can you do to increase your self-awareness by becoming more aware of when you are confabulating? Reflect, meditate, get other people to explore your reasons through pertinent questioning (as can happen in coaching or an action learning set), practise self-hypnosis (with the intention of listening to your unconscious mind as well as merely giving it suggestions) or keep a learning log or a journal – if the evidence of the beliefs you used to hold is there in black and white, it will be available to your conscious mind to learn from.
It’s worth doing more to get to know yourself. The great hypnotherapist Milton Erickson used to say that the reason people had problems was because they were out of rapport with their unconscious minds.
More elephant/rider related stuff – Maile McCarthy on her Breath by Breath blog (from where I’ve lifted her illustration) suggests attention as a way of bringing the conscious rider and the unconscious elephant into greater harmony: noticing when your conscious…