Algoritmos de Marca de agua

Abstractions

8

Meta -language is the mechanism that moves us upward into higher level abstractions.

Milton Model and the Meta-Questions Conceptual Trance 8

Move up to create an agreement frame. The place of Intuitions.

Existence 8 8

Deductive Intuition: Starting with a general principle moving down in applying it to specific situations. Inductive Intuition: Start with specific details and moving up to create higher level meanings.

9

What are examples or references of this? What specifically do you mean? Ask Meta-Model specificity questions. 9 Marketing— Managers Economy 8 Business CEO 8 Managers

— Finance 8 Managers Unit Managers 8 Supervisors 8 Administrative Support

Meta-Model questions enable us to move down the scale into specificity. Increasingly more specific details and distinctions

Going down enables us to come out of conceptual trances.

#4. Relationship Comparison:

Matching Sameness — Mis-Matching Differences

Description: This meta-program addresses how we work with and compare data. It describes the

relationship we adopt toward information. Do we approach things seeking to match what we already know or do we approach seeking to mis-match? When we put these two basic approaches ways on a continuum, we have a range of choices. We can either look for what matches what we already know —what we find as the same as our existing knowledge, or we can look for what differs or mis-

matches our knowledge. This meta-program plays a dominant role in determining our overall style of thinking, reasoning, learning, as well as our world-view.

When we match for sameness, we are looking for commonalities; when we mismatch for difference, we are making distinctions. These means that in matching, we are searching for correlations while when we are mis-matching, we are searching for exceptions. James and Woodsmall (1988),

Woodsmall and Woodsmall (1998).

Elicitation:

Ask any question about the relationship between experiences, things, or ideas. C What relationship do you first see between what you do now and what

you did last year?

C What do you pay attention to first when you walk into a room? C When I put these four similar pens of different colors on this table, three

lined up and one in a different position, what do you first notice? C What is the relationship between where you live today and lived before you moved here?

Matching matching balanced mis-matching Sameness with exceptions Equally with exceptions

Identification: 1) Matching for Sameness. People who match for sameness focus their attention on

how things match current experience with a previous experience. They are looking for similarities and patterns. Those who match generally value security and want things to stay pretty much the same. They will not like or value change and may even feel threatened by it. The sameness perspective elicits a more conservative approach. Because they like regularity and stability, they can contently stay on a job for several years and experience no discomfort. As the rapid growth and change of information and technology speeds up, the sameness perspective can create stress and difficulties.

Mis-matching Differences

“Sameness people certainly do not want things that are new and different. Absolutely not! There could be nothing more loathsome and unpleasant than change to one who lives in sameness. . . .

sameness people detest change and often have an excruciating time dealing with it.” (Woodsmall and Woodsmall ,1998, p. 26, 50)

2) Mis-matching for Differences. Those who mis-match will first notice the things that differ. They

will value change, variety, and newness and they will not like situations that remain static, but find them boring. When this is overdone, the person mis-matching will only notice differences, problems, and things that do not fit. This represents a fresher style of thinking in contrast to the more stable style of sameness. Those who mis-match for difference will notice the picture that is not hung straight. They will want change almost as a constant diet and may even value change for change’s sake. Terms about change like re-engineering, innovation, new, different, troubleshooting, etc. will sound like music to the ears of mis-matchers. People who extremely mis-match will get excited about

revolutionary changes.

3) Degrees in between matching and mis-matching. The continuum line between matching and mis-

matching gives us numerous places in between. People who live here do a bit of both. We may first match and then mis-match, or first sort for differences and then for similarities.

Matching then mis-matching describe those who first notice similarities, then differences. They like

things to remain relatively the same, but allow gradual change. Generally, they prefer a little change in life every two or three years and can endure a major change every five to seven years. Such people live quite stable lives and tend to adapt well. They accept change that occurs through gradual

improvements and love such words as better, improvement, gradual, and kaizen.

Mismatching then matching describes those who first notice differences, then similarities. These

individuals like change and variety, but not too much and certainly not revolutionary change. They enjoy rearranging things and enjoy a diet of changing things. This may lead to changing relationships, jobs, homes, etc. fairly frequently to satisfy the desire for variety. They like evolutionary change.

Equally matching and mis-matching describes a fairly equal sorting for both of these distinctions,

giving a person lots of flexibility in shifting back and forth, with neither pattern dominating. These individuals frequently say, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." They will equally seek both change and diversity.

While there may be some people who match or mis-match in an extreme manner, most of us

incorporate a mixture of both. This means we can put our tendency to find similarities (matching) and to find differences (mis-matching) along a continuum and view them, not as either-or choices, but matters of degree. Doing so allows us to ask, To what degree, or how much, do you filter for similarities (or differences)? It also enables us to create two axes from which four quadrants can arise as in Figure 6:3.2

Figure 6:3_IHigh

II

Pathfinders

Purposeful behavior Systemic orientation

to find

Similarities III

Doers

Implements solutions Practical orientation IV

Problem Formulators Formulates the problem Artistic orientation

Low ____________________________________________ High Tendency to find Differences —>

Languaging: People who match will tell you how things look the same to them. They will focus on

the things that remain stable. With those who match, emphasize areas of mutual agreement, security, what you both want, etc., and ignore differences at first.

Those who mis-match will talk about how the things differ. You will hear them talk about things that are new, changed, different, revolutionary, innovative, etc. People who match then mis-match, and people who mis-match then match. will discuss how things gradually change over time. Listen for comparative terms such as more, less, better, greater than. Mis-matchers emphasize how things differ, the things that are new, different, distinctions, innovative, the revolutionary, adventurous,

developmental, growth, evolving, etc. With those who incorporate a bit of both (the patterns with exceptions) alternate between things that match and those that mis-match.

With the mis-matcher who steps into the tester’s role when part of a team, listen for his or her statements and translate them into a question that invites a reality check. This utilizes the difference sorting for problem-solving.

“Thanks for that critique, we can use that. It raises the question of what we can do about these potential problems and how can we proactively prevent them from arising in the first place. What thoughts do you have on this?”

Challenges: We often find those who mis-match difficult to deal with because they perceive what’s

different. Whatever we say, they will mis-match. In their mind-body-emotion system, they constantly go to the counter-examples to challenge our statements. When we present an idea, instruction,

suggestion, belief, principle, etc., their brain immediately mis-matches. That’s why they will come back with a list of "Yes, buts..." to demonstrate why the idea will not work or lacks validity. When they do this constantly, especially in intimate relationships or when working with them on a project, it can be very frustrating to say the least. Yet this is not “bad,” just different. To reduce this tension, present your idea as something that probably won't work so they can mis-match that. They will be more likely give you a list of reasons why it will. Pace them with something like, "I have some serious reservations about whether we can get this project out on time ..."

people will respond automatically with the opposite response from whatever you desire or expect. When this happens, congruently and sincerely play their polarity. In Uncle Remus, Br’er Rabbit

illustrated this by begging Br’er Fox to not throw him into the briar patch (the outcome that he actually wanted because then he could get away).

When you offer a matching person something new they will typically respond with a similarity comparison, "Isn't this just like...?" Such individuals will first filter for similarities. Matchers

generally feel quite comfortable to perceive similarities more than differences. In influencing, play to their comfort zone and emphasize the similarities between your proposal and their familiarities. Because more people match in their filtering than mis-match, standardized franchises have been very successful.

Entrepreneurs are the creative business persons who like doing new and exciting things. They sort by difference and love making new distinctions that create innovations. Yet because they constantly change systems and employees, they tend to be poor managers. To be successful they will need to hire people who sort for sameness to run their daily operations, marketing, accounting, and business

systems.

Contexts of Origin: This meta-program can be conditioned from parenting experiences with those we

modeled in terms of how they perceptually matched or mis-matched. If our parents misused either style, we might have learned or decided to value the opposite. Trauma experience with parent, teacher, or authority figure who forbade us to disagree may lead us to develop either a fear of mis- matching or to make a decision to always mis-match. The meta-program of the strong-willed in temperament (Self-Instruction, #49) is closely related to mis-matching.

“Some people believe that personality patterns are innate and others believe that they are developed in childhood. Sameness people prefer to believe that they are innate and that they cannot be changed. Difference people prefer to think that man is a product of his environment, and that as the environment changes, then man changes. . . . choose which explanation that you think most adequately fits the

facts.” (Woodsmall and Woodsmall, 1998, p. 63)

Self-Analysis:

__ Sameness Matching/ Difference Mismatching / Balance

Contexts: __ Work/Career __ Relationships

__ Sports

__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation

__ Other:____________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No

#5. Information Staging: Fore-grounding — Back-grounding Counting — Discounting

Description: Inrepresentingsensory information we create objects and characters on the theater of

our mind. This presupposes that we put these things somewhere on the stage in our mind, front and center, off to the right or left, in the background. Where do we typically stage good news and bad news? What do you put in the theater that is salient to you, that stands out, and that counts? What do you put in the background—things that for you do not count?

What and how we foreground and background things determines what we focus on, what we see, what we respond to, and essentially what counts for us. In every awareness there are ideas and

representations in the foreground and others in the background. This is inescapable when it comes to the basic sensory representations which we encode as a movie full of sights and sounds. It is much less obvious with regard to conceptual representations. What counts as important and significant enough to pay attention to the foreground? When we zoom in on these things, we notice them. We make them front and center. What’s in the background gets less attention and focus, yet can set the context and the environment of the assumed frames that contribute to the meaning and sense of what’s foregrounded.

Elicitation:

C What’s in the foreground of your mind?

C What movie is playing on the screen of your mind?

C How do you represent that movie in terms of its cinematic features? C What stands out about those cinematic features?

C What thoughts, ideas, and awarenesses come to mind when you think about X? Fore-grounding Counting

Identification: 1) Discounting: thoughts counter-factual. This kind of thinking causes one to feel that

we “should have done better and more.” “These thoughts make us feel bad, which motivates us to sit around and to feel sorry for ourselves.” In Rational Emotive therapy, discounting is one of the key cognitive distortions by which we can make ourselves unduly miserable. When we discount the value of what we are learning and doing, we don’t derive any pleasure in the small approximations that we make in the right direction. They don’t count. Because discounting dismisses these as inadequate, and it under-utilizes resources.

Back-grounding Discounting

Denise Beike and Deirdre Slavik (2003) call discounting

2) Counting: On the other side of the continuum is counting. In counting, we take credit, validate,

affirm, recognize, acknowledge, and add up small steps as contributing to our overall momentum. In this way of thinking, we reflect on successes, even the smallest approximation of success, and we congratulate ourselves to reinforce the feeling and behavior. Slavik (2003) says that this way of thinking helps people to “feel more in control of themselves and their circumstances.”

Languaging: Listen for words and terms that indicate that something counts or doesn’t count, stands

out, is front and center, is off on the periphery, foreground, background, back of your mind, etc. Then use this very language to pace and lead to new and more enhancing representations.

“I know that the very idea of thinking that your value and worth as a human being as being

unconditional as a given is not something that’s been front and center in your thinking, but probably a long way from your conscious awareness, and yet, if you did bring it into the foreground of your thinking, and just let it be there as a central idea, I wonder how would that enhance your life? Would that make you feel more like you count?”

Discounting as a thinking pattern can undermine and eliminate all kinds of potential resources. Those who have perfectionistic tendencies have learned or been raised to think, “It’s not good enough; it could have been better; why can I never do anything right?” Yet the discounting thinking pattern prevents us from ever really having a chance to learn through small approximations. We discount small beginnings and so prevent learning through trial and error. There are also things that would serve us well to discount and ignore—things that distract us from our dreams, visions, and goals, things we do not need to invest with mental and emotional energy. These we can screen out (Focus, #9).

When I first met Jill, she was the person selected to be the Logistics leader for a three week training in Sydney, Australia. As a delightful, well-organized, and very thoughtful leader, she ran the team very effectively and devoted an incredible amount of time and energy. Yet every compliment seemed to land on deaf ears and those that seemed to get through were immediately brushed aside, “Ah, that’s nothing; anybody in this position would do that.” After about two thousand such brush offs, I

commented, “You are really masterful at discounting, aren’t you? Did you learn this growing up or did you model someone to fend off compliments to prevent you from accessing too many good feelings?”

Later I discovered that my mirroring of the meta-program apparently interrupted her pattern to such an extent that she felt the need to take time to reflect on it. As she did, she also ran a quality control

evaluation. Discounting did not serve her very well, in fact, it had been and was continuing to

sabotage her effectiveness and prevented her from stepping step forward as a leader. Several months later we met again and she announced that she was no longer a discounter, but that she now let things count and that it had brought about a complete transformation in her relationships and activities.

Contexts of Origin: We learn this meta-program. We learn both to discount as we learn to let things

count. Parenting, childhood experiences with teachers and others train us in foregrounding our

achievements or failures. If we foreground our failures, then mistakes count—count to call our skills, competency, and even ourselves into question and discount our value.

Self-Analysis:

__ Counting, Foregrounding / Discounting, Back-grounding Contexts:

__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports

__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation

__ Other: __________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No

#6. Direction:

Pessimistic — Optimistic; Worst — Best Case

Description: How we look upon events, situations that are challenging, hard, painful, and even

traumatic is a meta-program—another perceptual filter. Do we first look for the problems, dangers, threats, obstacles, difficulties, and challenges of a situation in terms of threat, loss, taking away from us, predicting the future, making our lives miserable? Do we look upon them as challenges to deal

with, as opportunities to master, as doors to new possibilities, as part of the human experience, or as chances for learning and development determine whether we are pessimists or optimists?

This meta-program distinguishes between processing things using the worst case scenario or best case scenario format. Sorting for the best-case scenario orients us in an optimistic, hopeful, goal- inspired, and empowered way. This way of thinking inspires hope as we look for good things. Sorting for the worst-case scenario orients us in a more pessimistic and skeptical way with a focus on

problems. We then focus on actual dangers that need to be addressed. Each approach and perceptual filter has its strengths and weaknesses, and each creates different kinds of limitations when over-done or taken to an extreme.

These two filters govern how we experience the things that happen and how we will attempt to respond. The pessimistic thinking pattern when high and overgeneralized will generate feelings of worthlessness (something is wrong with me), helplessness (nothing I can do about it), and

hopelessness (it’s always going to be this way). The optimistic thinking pattern enables us to keep the hurt, pain, and evil out so that we can cope and even master it. Seligman (1975, 1991), Goleman