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.

I am beautiful

It's been over a month since I watched “Suicide Squad”. Didn't watch it when it came out in the cinemas. For one thing because there was talk about much violence. On the other hand I have only limited interest in comic adaptations and movies where people are put together when they are normally not appearing together interest me even less. My Batman details knowledge is very limited. I have seen the animated series as a kid. I barely know more than the „classic“ bad guys everybody knows.

“Suicide Squad” is a story around a group of villains from the Batman/Gotham City universe. I didn't know most of them, but their individual stories are roughly outlined to introduce the individual characters. Then there's also a scene in an otherwise abandoned bar where the group is taking a short break and talking. Captain Boomerang says that another one from the group is amazing on the outside, but ugly inside. “We all are!”, agrees the almost constantly aggressive Harley Quinn. Except for him, she says and looks at the reptilian-like Killer Croc, he's ugly on the outside, too. He's calm when he takes the hoody off his head and tells her, “Not me, shorty. I am beautiful.”

Overall the movie is a matter of taste and there's no accounting for taste, as they say. I personally liked the bar scene best and I thought about it afterwards the most. Obviously at least two other people thought the same, because that scene is on YouTube in German, albeit in bad quality, under the title “Ich bin wunderschön | Suicide Squad | Beste Szenen“ here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7Vat6_r4AA

And also in English you can find it under the title “SuicideSquad(Killer Croc)-I'm beautiful_-*Best Scene*“ here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3qeWUas-IM

Very fast I saw a connection to that one scene in “Sherlock” where John Watson asks Sherlock Holmes in the context of “Who am I?”, if he is pretty (see Am I pretty?). But Killer Croc didn't just say “pretty”, he said “beautiful”.

I don't like rain - yes, I do like it

There are sayings around the topic that not circumstances or situations are bad, but what's important is how we deal with them and perceive them. That sounds good and nice. Sometimes it's easier said than done. It's true though.

Last Wednesday it was hot and the postman complained. I told him that now everyone complains that it's too hot, but next time it's cold and wet again, everyone will complain again. This time that it's too cold and wet. I told him that I'd like it to be cooler, but don't like wet much. He said, he likes wet.

Thursday the cooling came and I had to go to work in the rain. I do not like umbrellas, because you've got 1) something in your hand and don't have it free and 2) what do I do with a wet umbrella? I prefer a wet jacket and hands free from umbrellas, dry or wet. Accordingly my jacket got wet on the way from my place to the train station. I had pulled my hood over the head. On the train I pulled the hood back off my head.

When I arrived at the stop at work, the rain hadn't stopped yet. Out of a somewhat strange feeling I didn't pull the hood back over my head. My hair got wet and suddenly I didn't care. No, it wasn't that I didn't care. It was good. I had been wrong on Wednesday. The rain got my hair wet. Inconvenient, since my hair curls up with a bit of natural curls I've got. It looks messy. Also no opportunity to dry the hair reasonably and fast either. At least I've got short hair.

I thought of someone in a movie, who over time has quite many scenes in which he gets more or less wet from rain. Sometimes he's got a hat. More than once he's got nothing to protect his head and hair. I thought of the actor and his character and the rain was suddenly perfectly fine and good. Strange how a simple mental connection can change the feelings for a situation.

No, I won't reveal which movie, actor or character I had in my head. That will stay my little secret. It's my connection anyway. If you don't like rain, you should find your own connection to make it likable. It can be liberating.

Limited perception

Dear reader,

we're looking at our watch daily. Whether it's a wrist watch or the mobile phone (cell phone for american readers). Do you have a wrist watch? If so, cover it up with your other hand to not look at it and answer a couple of questions:

- Can you tell me, if your watch is an analog one with the numbers 1 to 12 in a circle or is it digital?
- If it's analog: does it have roman numbers or arabic ones (like this number: 2) or lines where the numbers should be? Does it have a way of showing you the seconds in some way? If so how? Does your watch also have a section for the date?
- If your watch is digital: does it have arabic numbers like on a clock face that just jump to the next number? Or is it a typical digital way with lines forming the numbers? Does it show the date?

For those among you, who already don't have a wrist watch: does your mobile/cell have numbers to show the time or the lines that form the numbers? Does your phone show you the seconds? If so how?

Now take your hand off your wrist watch or take your phone and check, if your answers were correct.

Please cover your watch or phone for one last time, so you can't see the display.

You just had a look at your watch or phone. So clearly you can tell me what time it is for you right now? If it's any comfort to you: most people will not be able to answer that question. Because our perception is always limited. When you looked at the watch the first time, it was to see if you answered the questions correctly. The time display was irrelevant for you. So you didn't pay attention to it.

It's similar to the following, probably already familiar, video. The instruction is to count how many times the players with the white t-shirts passed the ball:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY 

Until next blog,


sarah

Postscript: Stop feeling sorry, but be compassionate!

Dear reader,

Susanne was so kind to point me to something very important about my last post: there's a difference between pity and compassion. I want to elaborate on that more now. Many thanks to Lisa as well for the stimulating chat!

For me pity is what I described in my last post. The professor has no arms. In my view, we need arms. She doesn't have arms, so I pity her. But as I already wrote, the professor at least seems to be happy, even without arms! So there is no reason to feel sorry or shocked or whatever for long. She's fine the way she is. It seems to me that pity has a lot to do with assumptions we make. Those assumptions should be tested and if possible lead to action of some kind or another afterwards. A bit like Sherlock Holmes. It would be bad to be stuck in an assumption and that was it.

Compassion is something different. With compassion someone might be shocked or startled at first. For example to learn that I'm missing my right foot. An important next step could be to ask, if or how I needed help. When I explain that I can walk, run and ride a bike fine, it's okay that I have got only one foot. I would need help swimming. Because I have to take off the prosthesis for that. That means that I have to get to the edge of the swimming pool or as close to the sea as possible with the prosthesis on, but then the prosthesis should be away from the water so it doesn't get wet all over. Then when I get out of the water I need the prosthesis back and someone either has to get it for me, or help me get to the prosthesis.

That's important and necessary. Generally speaking the professor and I are fine with our handicap. It's also fine to feel sorry for a moment that we lack arms respectively a foot. The important thing is how to react and deal with that in the longer term. That if we need help, we don't only have people around us who feel sorry for our situation and don't dare helping us or for whatever other reason don't act. When we need help some time, it's important for us to have people around, who understand and help us.

In the social field or among people working in communications there's a word often used: empathy. Recognise and understand what the other person is feeling. That may sometimes mean crying along with them. That's important and right. However it should happen for a limited time only. After that it's important to think it through together how things can go on from there. That's very important. Because if someone is really in a bad situation, that person needs help and not only someone to cry along with them. Even though the saying goes: A sorrow shared is a sorrow halved. It's even better if this sorrow has an end and one can get out of a bad situation easier and faster with others than alone.

Until next blog,

sarah

Stop feeling sorry!

Dear reader,

many people, especially those I meet on the internet, feel sorry when they learn that I was born handicapped. I'm missing my right foot from birth. But, as I keep telling those people all the time: I can walk normally, run, ride a bike with a prosthesis. Still the first reaction from many is, “I'm sorry.” Why anyway? Sometimes I say or write to them that probably they feel more sorry than I ever feel for myself. I was born this way. I don't know any other way. I don't miss my right foot. I never had it, but I always had a prosthesis.

Years ago, during my studies, I had some seminars with a professor with no arms. Although I never dared asking her directly, I assume she doesn't have arms because of Contergan. Once her son was in the seminar and she told us she's got a second son. In one discussion group in a seminar, she told us that she never had the need to put her arm around someone. The reaction of all of us at first certainly was shock. We're so used to hugging someone. Be it as a form of greeting or to comfort. And she has got two sons! Of course would I have the need to hug my sons, comfort them, put my arm around them, and cradle the little kid in my arm. Wouldn't I? And yet she seemed at the very least content with her life. She had said it herself, she never had had the need to put her arm around someone. Why then do I feel sorry for her, that she, especially with her two sons, could and can never put her arms around someone? I think, we're feeling sorry very quickly for others when we see or learn about something that's existing for us or possible for us, but not existing or not possible for them. But what good does it do to feel sorry then? Not at all.

My landlady and friends of my parents, consequently also mine, I guess, told me the other day that she was to give one of her sons money. That money was to come from another person, who didn't give it to her on time for her to give the money to her son on time. So when the son asked her about the money, she had to tell him she didn't have it... and said to him that she was sorry. Talking to me and thinking back about it, she questioned, why she had felt sorry about it. It hadn't been her fault that the other person didn't give the money on time!

Stop feeling sorry for yourself and especially stop feeling sorry for others! That's not helping anybody. When someone is in a bad situation, he or she needs help, not pity. If you want to help and the other person genuinely needs help, help them. That's all you can do. Everything else ends in you feeling sorry and then what? Then you feel bad yourself. That's not helping you or the other person.

Until next blog,
sarah

Thinner too: with savvy - weight and see

Dear reader,

you wanted to be thin and cancelled your fitness studio membership, because you don't need it anyway. Now some food for thought to add to that.

I read once that hypnosis is the best way and one of the best possibilities to achieve that. I have no idea how much of what I did to be thin was in a sense “hypnosis” or not. Regardless of that I can see certain parallels between hypnosis and successfully being thin. Many people believe that hypnosis makes you lose your will. That's not correct. Apart from the conscious and the unconscious, there's also a third very important instance, which is often called “the critical factor”. It's the connection between the conscious and the unconscious. The unconscious holds beliefs. The critical factor checks incoming new information with the already existing beliefs. If they are identical, they go into the unconscious, if not they're blocked out and stay in the conscious mind only.

Hypnosis only works when the critical factor is levelled down. Only then are phenomenon like an immobile (cataleptic) hand possible. Of course the person can still move their hand. But at that moment the barriers of the critical factor are at least that much down so what the hypnotist is saying, that the hand is impossible to move and cataleptic, is accepted to be true. This is enhanced even further through a chain of autosuggestion (“I notice that I can't move my hand. So it must be true that I can't move it. Therefore I can't move it.”) and the hand is immobilised, although under normal circumstances, the hand would be possible to move fully and without difficulty.

The critical factor is the reason why (New Year's) resolutions are so difficult to do and to keep doing them. The critical factor finds many more confirmations for the old habits and beliefs. So they are kept in the end. So for being thin you have to use tricks like a hypnotist.

The most important of all is:

1. State goals in the positive!

State your goals in the positive towards what you want. Remember: if you state it in the negative with „not“, you'll have the negative still in your head. That's not helpful in the long run. I'm warning you, if you state in the negative, you'll have an elephant in your head and he's so big, he'll crush all the positive intentions.

Our brain works best with pictures. That's why they keep saying in order to remember a string of things, to connect them to a story. I find a whole story to be difficult and complicated. I find it better to work with other methods and build yourself a memory palace. Do you know the film “The Machinist”? In it Christian Bale is a man, who's tormented with problems he repressed, so he almost doesn't eat at all, has massive sleeping problems and looks just the way someone would in that situation. It certainly wasn't healthy for him as an actor to lose that much weight for that role. Here are two picture of it:

It really does not look healthy at all. But it gives your mind very clear images of what you want. Only watch out, please, please, not to go just that far really. It should only be images, with which to work on your own goal. To have such a physique is sick and very damaging for you in the long run! Nevertheless: overdo it with the images, which you use, be it in your head or those you pick to remind you. (The 10^th Doctor in “Doctor Who”, David Tennant, is probably more of a role model for being thin, and very likeable, too. Although at least one of his companions described him as “just a long streak of nothing. You know, alien nothing.” Right she is.)

2. Find pictures (real or in the head), which are exaggerating, to be clear on what you want.

(Once someone wrote to me on the internet and wanted help with hypnosis so I would make her breasts bigger. I told her that when I wanted to be thinner, I was thinking about Christian Bale's role in The Machinist and advised to her to do the same. So she searched for a picture of a woman with breasts too big, printed it out and used that image then. A couple of weeks later she wrote to me and told me that her breasts actually had gotten bigger. I don't know if what she said was correct. It seemed so to me. In the end the most important thing is, that she was happy and she seemed to be to me.)

Sometimes I tricked myself and picked a bit wider cloths to wear, which wouldn't be so tight on my body. That gives a feeling of being thin. At least thinner for those cloths, which with more weight would have been tighter. Skinny jeans on the other hand sometimes are quite comfortable and make your thighs be a bit tighter than wider jeans would when you sit down.

Once again English seems to be even more extreme, once you start playing with words. To "lose weight" is, if you're saying it out loud, very close to "loose wait". (Not tight waiting, ey?) In English I like to ask then: Waiting for what? But even in German I don't think it's a good choice of words for the wish of “losing weight”. Nobody likes to lose something. You have to find the words that fit best for yourself. In the end all I can do is make you aware that different words also have diverse meanings that come with them.

Also don't underestimate the support from outside. If a child is big and should lose weight, it's best to make it a family project. It's not helping the child if the family keeps eating fastfood as the child is supposed to eat healthy food.

Two “tricks” I still use now and then are the following: often we mistake thirst for hunger and eat something. It can often help to instead first drink a good amount. In the evening it can also help, at a certain time of hour, to go and brush your teeth. As you know, after that you shouldn't eat anymore. So I only drink unsweetened tea or water then.

Until next blog,

sarah

Abductive, Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

Dear reader,

I can't help myself but making this blog entry today a scientific one.

Before I start I want you to know three things

1) I wasn't very scientific in my last post. I forgot to mention the names of the series I mentioned. The BBC production is called "Sherlock". The american series goes under the title of "Elementary".

2) It may surprise some of you that although Holmes was so analytical and scientific, his creator was quite unscientific and gullible. Doyle believed very much in the existence of fairies. It's also difficult to believe that Harry Houdini and Arthur Conan Doyle have been friends for a while. Because their point of view on spiritism was so contrary however, that friendship didn't last long.

3) The producers of "Sherlock" really took great care in creating that show. Sherlock has his own homepage The Science of Deduction. You can also read Dr. John Watson's Blog, which includes comments by Holmes and others!!! Other characters of the series also have their websites: Molly Hooper's blog and the forum of Connie Prince. The last two however may only be of interest to people, who know the series and the persons.

In a way even Sherlock Holmes' homepage is only for people who know the series or fans. Also the title of the page is sort of wrong. Sherlock Holmes is not using deduction in his investigations. This is a mistake not only from the series, but also wrong in Doyle's books. On imdb.com you can find a note on that mistake.

To be honest, each reasoning: abductive, deductive and inductive - are tricky and separating each of them from the others is not quite easy. The differences are very small.

The differences between inductive and deductive reasoning are relatively simple to explain.

In deductive reasoning you set up a general rule. From that rule you set up another rule, of which you can be certain, too. If or rather because both are true, the conclusion will be certain at the end. This kind of reasoning can be found in mathematics, for example in equations with variables:

if x = 2

and if y = 3,

then 2 x + y = 7

Maths is often very much just theory. So let's put it another way:

If chaos is increased in a system, unless you feed it with energy,

and if my flat is a system,

then I should feed my flat with energy and keep it tidy and clean, unless I want to drown in a chaotic mess.

With inductive reasoning you take one single thing and take it to be true. From that you make a general rule that applies to other similar things. A conclusion is likely, but not certain. There is this thought experiment about a white swan. If we see many white swans, we can conclude that there exist white swans. It would be wrong however to conclude that all swans are white, or that there only exist white swans. In science, which is about gathering information, you can find this way of thinking.

Abductive reasoning is about observing something and looking for a possible explanation that would make the observed probable as an outcome. The theorist Charles Sanders Peirce, the founder of abductive reasoning, explained it this way:

"The surprising fact, C, is observed. But if A were true, C would be a matter of course. Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true."

Finding a conclusion is taking your best shot and not very satisfying. The conclusion you come up with may or may not be true. In medicine you find this way of thinking. The patient tells about his symptoms and the doctor has to think of an illness that would lead to those symptoms, to treat the patient accordingly. Also in court you'll find abductive reasoning: does the prosecution or the defense the better arguments that fit and explain the given situation?

So indeed Holmes doesn't use deduction, but abduction. He cannot be certain to see all the facts of a crime scene that lead to the crime. So Holmes' conclusion are likely to be incomplete and with that nothing more than taking your best shot.

Arthur Conan Doyle used Dr. Joseph Bell as a model for Holmes, as I mentioned already in my last post. Another doctor was very good in observing and making conclusions: Dr. Milton Erickson. Sidney Rosen describes a story in his book "My Voice Will Go with You: The Teaching Tales of Milton H. Erickson", which is a good example to show how good Erickson was in observing and making conclusions. The story is called "The Right Psychiatrist":

A young, beautiful woman came to Erickson. She was very desperate. She wasn't pleased with either of the psychiatrist she had seen so far. So she was uncertain about Erickson and whether he was able to help her. He wrote down some things about the young woman and then said to her that he was the right psychiatrist. He could prove it by asking a question. But the woman won't like that question. The woman wanted to hear the question anyway. So Erickson asked her, "How long have you been wearing women's cloths?" Erickson had seen the woman pick a lint off her sleeve in a straight, direct move, without a "detour" around the breasts, like a woman would.

There's also a video with Tim Minchin, where he talks about the human logic, which addresses another aspect of logic.

Until next blog,

sarah