The Neuro-Logical Levels and the significance of our word choices

When I was studying inclusive education, they told us that body language and an “open body posture” was important when working with clients. But they didn't elaborate on that. So I had to do my own learning (mostly reading) about that. I came across Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP). I won't go into the details about what that is. Part of what they did and still do is either checking out those that are good at something and find out how they do it that well, so they can teach others that aren't that good or know nothing about this activity. One of the people especially interested in researching how people do things is Robert Dilts. That quote I opened my previous post with was from the book “Dynamic Learning” by Robert Dilts and Todd Epstein and is a transcription of a seminar on learning and teaching.

One of the things Robert Dilts developed (this is also mentioned in “Dynamic Learnings” and other of his books) are the “Neuro-Logical Levels”, sometimes also just referred to as “Logical Levels” or “Levels of Learning”.

a) Identity – Who?

b) Believes and Values – Why?

c) Capabilies – How?

d) Behaviour – What?

e) Environment – Where and when?

Sometimes those levels even have another one before “Identity” which would be “Spirituality/Mission” asking “Who else?”. For the purpose of this post however, the 5 levels mentioned above are suffice. All the levels influence learning and influence each other. Though changes in the bottom levels won't have so much of an influence on the upper levels than changes on the top levels do on the levels below.

For example it is indeed more difficult to study at around noon right after you've eaten and your body is more focused on digestion and your belly than headspace and learning. I remember one of my teacher at university was really unfortunate to teach us fairly theory packed things in a seminar at noon. One time he noticed we were all just too tired to pay proper attention, he was kind enough to end the class early. I really appreciate that. Or when it's really hot in the summer and you already have all the windows open to get some air in, but there just is no wind outside, it may be difficult to stay focused.

Speaking of focus: What schools usually focus on is how the children are doing in performance. So that would be the behaviour level and how well they do it, rating their capabilities.

Things can get mixed up badly though with terrible consequences, when for example some child is not doing well in writing. We are quick to say that “the child is dyslexic”. Dyslexia is the term for when someone has problems with reading and/or writing. But check the levels above again. If you say someone”is dyslexic”, that's the identity level. It's on top of the levels. It influences all the other levels. And it's wrong. If what makes them bad is being poor at spelling, that's a capability level, not identity level. Sadly people identify with their symptoms fast and what once was a fairly low level of “bad spelling” may soon become “a dyslexic child” or “a child with learning disability”. Make a guess about which of those problems is easier to change?

Side-note: It must have been in eighth grade or somewhere around that time when the teachers taught us about puberty, sex and all that stuff. I remember we got a small book in religion class that I ended up giving to the school library. I'm not even sure if I stopped reading it at a certain point or if I did finish it and then gave it to the school library. In any case there was this paragraph where they explained that teenagers sometimes argue with their parents and are mean and bad towards them. The reader needn't worry though: “You can still change.” (Du kannst dich noch ändern.) That line just made me furious and I told as much to the librarian I handed my copy of the book to. Even back then I thought that a big part of being a teenager is about change and growing up and getting independent. To me at least some of the tantrums of teenagers is based on that growing up process and hormones and not so much about willingly being a bad person. So to tell a teenager then that they “can still change” seemed just a stupid thing to write in my opinion. Was it like if they didn't like who they were then, (e. g. with the tantrums) that it didn't mean they'd stay that way until they died? Well, of course not! I guess the word that offended me most was the word “can”. Granted, there are some bad adult people out there as well. I guess the authors of the book would suggest that they didn't take that chance to change. Generally for me that change was a given in my opinion and to make it a “You can still change” seemed really stupid.

So anyways the point I wanted to make in this post here is that we should be careful, especially with negative feedback to children on which level we make those comments. It will leave an impact. Some deeper than others depending on the level.