Fundamental Concepts Flashcards
Causation Statements
This refers to statements that express a cause-and-effect relationship. A causation statement suggests that one event is the result of another. For example, “Studying hard leads to good grades” implies that the effort put into studying is the cause of achieving good grades.
Equation Statements
Equation statements assert that two concepts are the same or equivalent. They often use forms of the verb “to be” to equate one thing with another, such as “Knowledge is power,” indicating that knowledge itself can be directly equated with having power.
External Behaviour = Internal State Statement
This concept reflects how an external event (EB) is linked to an internal state (IS). It’s about the meaning or interpretation we give to an event. For example, “Getting a compliment makes me feel valued” connects the event of receiving a compliment (EB) with the internal feeling of being valued (IS).
An external event is something you can watch in a movie on screen.
Value Words and Ideas
These are statements that express what is important to us, our principles, or our ethics. They reflect our judgment about what is good, bad, desirable, or undesirable. An example might be “Honesty is the best policy,” which shows a value placed on truthfulness.
Presuppositions
These are the underlying assumptions or beliefs implied in communication. They are not directly stated but are assumed to be true within the context of the statement. For example, “If you need help, just ask” presupposes that help is available and that asking will result in receiving that help.
Identity
This pertains to statements that reflect how a person sees themselves or others. Identity statements are tied to the self-concept and how individuals define themselves. For example, “I am a lifelong learner” reflects an identity centered around continuous education and personal growth.
Cause-Effect (C-E) within EB = IS
(And a great question you can ask when you only get the IS)
C-E statements express a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship within the framework of EB = IS. They indicate that a specific event causes a particular interpretation or internal state. For example, “Seeing the storm clouds causes me to feel gloomy” shows that the external event of observing storm clouds (EB) causes the internal feeling of gloominess (IS).
Most common question: How is that a problem? (make sure they’re having a problem before you ask this)
What does he / she think brought about this feeling? What other significance does he / she give it?
Complex Equivalence (CEq) within the framework of EB = IS
(And a great question you can ask when you only get the IS)
Complex Equivalence (CEq) is a concept where a person equates an external event (EB) with a complex internal state (IS), belief, or identity. It’s more intricate than a simple cause-effect (C-E) relationship because it often involves a subjective interpretation that ties a specific event to a broader aspect of one’s identity or worldview.
In CEq, the connection between an event and an internal state is not just about one causing the other; it’s about them being seen as virtually synonymous within the person’s experience. For instance, if someone says, “If my children are happy, it means I’m a good parent,” they’re equating the external event of their children’s happiness with their identity as a competent parent. This equivalence is complex because it encompasses a web of beliefs about parenting, self-assessment, and values.
CEq often reflects deeply held convictions about how one aspect of life is indicative of a larger pattern or truth. These equivalences are powerful because they can shape a person’s self-perception and decision-making processes, often operating at an unconscious level and driving much of their behavior and emotional responses.
Most common question: What does that mean to you?
What meaning does this feeling have? What other significance does he / she give it?
EB = IS Identification
This is how they identify themselves with the EB…
You can ask: What does that say about you as a person?
Or fill in the blank… this means ______ about me?
Or I am….?
Content reframing
We operate inside the formula box and simply shift the frame from one frame-of-reference to another. “It doesn’t mean this, it means this other thing.” We can discover more useful meanings if we ask such questions as:
“How can I view this event as valuable?”
“What positive intent did that person have?”
Nelson Zink has suggested a most useful process for developing reframing flexibility when he said, “Try giving every event at least three different meanings and see how this changes your world.”
Context reframing
We move outside of the formula box. From here we can explore the context that surrounds the box, the contexts of contexts, and what shifts of contexts would make a great difference.
“In what context would this behavior or response function usefully?”
“Where would I want to produce this response?”
What does Meta mean? And what simple question can help you go Meta so you can form your EB = IS statement using C - E OR CEq meaning?
What does that mean to you (Asking about IS)?
What does he / she do to make you think that? (Asking about EB)?
Nominalizations
Nominalizations occur when we turn verbs (which describe actions or processes) into nouns (which describe things). This linguistic transformation can make the dynamic process seem static, obscuring who is doing the action and sometimes making change seem more difficult because it turns processes into fixed objects.
Examples of Nominalizations:
1. Decision (from “decide”): Saying “I’m having trouble with this decision” turns the act of deciding into a thing that seems to have a life of its own.
2. Relationship (from “relate”): “We’re working on our relationship” makes the ongoing process of relating to each other sound like a static object.
3. Development (from “develop”): “The development of the project is on schedule” refers to the action of developing as a noun.
4. Failure (from “fail”): “Her failure to pass the test was surprising” turns the action of failing into a thing, a noun.
5. Understanding (from “understand”): “My understanding of the topic has grown” nominalizes the verb, making the process of understanding seem like an object that can grow.
Modal Operators:
Modal operators are words that express a speaker’s attitude towards the possibility, necessity, or desirability of an action. They can indicate obligation (must, have to), permission (may, can), ability (can, could), desire (want to, would like to), and more.
Examples of Modal Operators:
1. Necessity (must, should): “I must finish this report by Friday” implies an obligation.
2. Desire (want to, wish): “I want to go on vacation” expresses a wish or desire.
3. Possibility (can, may): “We can start the meeting now” suggests an option or possibility.
4. Impossibility (cannot, can’t): “He can’t be the one who did it” expresses something that’s not possible.
5. Choice (choose to, prefer): “I choose to eat healthy foods” indicates a decision or preference.
Deep Structures
Every sentence has two levels.
The deep structure refers to the underlying syntactic structure of a sentence that conveys its fundamental meaning. It’s a theoretical construct that represents the core semantic relations and basic syntactic organization of a sentence before any transformations occur. The deep structure is thought to be more abstract and is not directly observable in the spoken or written form of a sentence. It encapsulates the mental representation of the sentence’s meaning.
To understand these concepts, consider the sentence “The cat chased the mouse.” In its deep structure, this sentence conveys a subject (the cat) performing an action (chase) on an object (the mouse). The surface structure may differ if transformed into a question, “Did the cat chase the mouse?” or a passive construction, “The mouse was chased by the cat.” Although the surface structures appear different, they all share the same deep structure representing the basic concept of the cat engaging in the act of chasing the mouse.
