Semantic Flashcards
48. Self-Experience:
Mind, Emotion, Will, Body, Role/ Position, Spirit, Dis-Identified Description: This higher meta-program deals with how we experience ourselves in terms of our selfidentity. We differ in our concept of “self” and the factors that we use and factor into our selfdefinition. How do you define yourself? What facets of yourself play a central role in the self out of which you come—and the self that you use at the meta-meta level? We can take any one of these facets of self, or a combination of them, or none of them, and conceptually define ourselves in terms of them. Korzybski said that when we identify with something, we set up an identification and treat that thing or process as equal to or the same as our label. Korzybski (1933). Elicitation: C What experiences do you identify with and use to create some of your self-definition? C As you think about your thoughts, emotions, will, body, roles, and positions that you experience in life, which of these facets seems the most important, real, or valid? C Do you think of yourself primarily as a thinker, as an emotional person, or a chooser? Do you see yourself in terms of your physical looks or body, in terms of your roles and positions, or in some other fashion? C How do you define yourself?
Mind Body Emotions Will Roles Dis-Identified Identification: 1) Thinking: The more we use our thinking and cognitive powers and the more they successfully enable us to cope with life and master specific areas of it, the more likely we are to identify as a thinker. 2) Feelings: The more we step into an experience and associate with it, the more likely we will use the feelings of that experience to define ourselves. We will then probably identify ourselves as a “feeler.”
3) Choosing: The more we sort for choice as our main power, the primary factor in our consciousness, the more likely we identify ourselves as a “chooser.” This sets us up for the strongwill filter of the Self-Instruction meta-program (#49). 4) Etc. We could even define ourselves primarily by our jobs, roles, experiences, degrees, relationships, body, health, ill-health, disease, political party, religious beliefs, ethic group, etc. Languaging: Listen for the facet of experience that seems to play the largest role in a person’s selfdefinition. Does the person identify him or herself with that facet? To what degree and to what extent? Does that self-definition control the person? Contexts of Origin: As a high-level concept about one’s self-definition, this metaprogram develops from the first level meta-programs. The place where we experience pleasure and/or pain is also the place where we create our constructs. The languaging we receive from significant people also plays a critical role. What did others say that entered into the formulation? How well did the person screen it out or identify with it? With whom did a person identify or dis-identify? Self-Analysis: __ Mind/ Emotion/ Will/ Body/ Role/ Position/ Spirit / Dis-identification Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
49. Self-Instruction
Compliant — Strong-Will Description: This meta-program relates to how we experience ourselves when face-to-face with someone telling us something, giving us instructions, or even with the principle of being told something. How do you experience such? Do you easily comply or do you naturally resist? How do you perceive and experience compliance or non-compliance to rules? How do you relate and respond when someone provides you information? How do you respond when someone gives you mandates, orders, or instructions? Do you have a natural tendency to comply, to question, or to resist? Imagine a continuum with extremes of complying and resisting. This gives us a meta-program relating to our style of “being told” something. Dobson (1970) Hall (1987, 1990). Elicitation: C Can you be told something? Can someone tell you what to do? C How do you think and feel when you receive instructions? C How well can you give yourself orders and carry them out without a lot of internal resistance? C Do you think of yourself as compliant, that you easily go along with the choices of others? Compliant Balanced Strong-Willed Easily Complies and submits to orders Resists orders, rules, commands
Identification: 1) Compliant: A compliant person responds immediately and automatically by complying in a pliable, receptive, open, and sometimes, in a sensitive way. The compliant person will experience much kinder/gentler emotions, even in contexts where someone truly imposes their will upon them. Complying doesn’t carry much semantic significance, it only means going along, following the rules, being a team player, being “a good boy,” etc. 2) Strong-willed: Those who are strong-willed have a difficult time “being told” things. When someone uses any kind of communication that tells (i.e., orders, instructs, informs, lectures, gives advices, etc.), the strong-willed will have an almost immediate and automatic response to resist that information. They do not like “being told.” For the strong-willed, telling is semantically loaded. Various beliefs interfere with the reception of information. A strong-willed person typically reads “telling” as “control,” “manipulation,” “memory of a trauma of some intrusive person,” “insult,” etc. The strong-willed will experience lots of emotions of “resistance”—primarily dislike and aversion. They will “feel” putupon, forced, controlled, manipulated, etc. Identify these patterns by simply noticing whether, and to what extent, a person bristles in a context where someone tells, orders, demands, or forces. In this “temperamental” factor, people fall along a continuum between extremely compliant to extremely strong-willed. Most of us lie somewhere in the middle. Reg Reynolds, a Neuro-Semantic trainer and Meta-Coach noticed this compliance versus noncompliance filter. “While in Australia, several of the South Africans mentioned how ‘obedient’ the Australians were to the rules, especially compared to them. We noted how they would patiently wait at traffic lights for the Green Man before crossing, even when there was little traffic. And at the training in Sydney, there was the time when one of us pulled up a chair to put up some flip charts and one of the staff berated us because it was unsafe and against the rules.” Reg noted that “most of us South Africans would not even hesitate to break these rules.” That’s when a discussion broke out about whether this could be a contributing factor for the high crime rate in South Africa. Perhaps when people live in a country suffering from large problems (crime, AIDS, unemployment, etc.) compliance with minor issues becomes much less important. Languaging: Linguistic markers for the strong-willed by temperament: “Why do I have to?” “I hate it when people tell me what to do.” “I have a problem with authority figures.” “I’m not going to jump through your hoops.” Linguistic markers for the compliant: “Sure.” “Whatever you say.” “How high do you want me to jump?” To pace and communicate with a strong-willed person, avoid all direct frontal telling styles. Set it in mind to not tell that person anything. Instead, replace telling with suggesting, hinting, prodding, planting idea seeds, and playfully teasing. Use indirect and covert communication skills. On the other hand, to pace and communicate a compliant person, just express your thoughts directly and straight-forwardly. Contexts of Origin: Those strong-willed by temperament will typically have an innate disposition toward not “being told.” The likelihood is high that they experience and define their “self” in terms of
choice and will. To preclude their choice feels like a violation of their sense of self. Those strongwilled by trauma experience boundary intrusions once too much, reach a threshold, and make a decision to “not be told.” Those strong-willed by belief have simply made up their mind about this or that subject and have “closed the store.” Self-Analysis: __ Compliant / Strong-willed / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: __________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No __ Strong-willed by: __ Temper __ Trauma __ Belief
50. Self-Confidence
Low — High Description: Self-confidence refers to our sense of competence regarding our feelings of capacity, ability, experience, and our pride that we can do certain things with skill and ability. We have faith (fidence) with (con) ourselves. This makes self-confidence conditional; the confidence is relative to our skills and competence. Feeling confident, without the skills to back it up, creates a hollow foolishness. Healthy self-confidence arises from our experiences (positive and negative), training, beliefs, relationships, etc. In this, self-confidence differs radically from self-esteem. Self-confidence relates to what we can do, to our actions, skills, and behaviors. Self-confidence relates to human doing and behavior. The concept of self-esteem (Self-Esteem, #51) relates to what we are as human beings, to being and being-ness. At the heart of self-confidence is our faith in what we can do, in our abilities and skills. It refers to more of an emotional and experiential factor of self, whereas self-esteem refers to our mental appraisal of rating our self as a person or human being. Self-confidence addresses our strengths and weaknesses, what we can and cannot do. Hall (2000 Meta-States, Dragon Slaying). Elicitation: C Make a list of the things that you can do well, and that you know, without a doubt, you can do well and may even take pride in your ability to do them skillfully. How many are you able to list? C How confident do you feel about these skills on your list? C How have you generalized from these specific self-confidences to your overall sense of selfconfidence? C What is it like for you to acknowledge the lack of self-confidence in a given area or skill? C When you have the competence of a given skill, are you able to access and accept those feelings of confidence?
Low Confidence in skills and self High Identification: 1) Low self-confidence: Those who filter things pessimistically (Scenario Type, Pessimistic metaprogram, #6) may not “count” many, if not most, of their competencies. Instead they may discount their
skills, talents, and aptitudes. In low self-confidence, a person may focus only on the things that he or she cannot do well and feel low confidence about almost everything. Those who seek to achieve their goals via the perfectionistic style (Goal Striving meta-program, Perfectionism, #40) can also create an overall sense of low self-confidence. 2) High self-confidence: Everybody who lives a fairly normal life will have lots of things that he or she can do with confidence, from the simple things like making one’s bed, cooking a meal, going to work, dressing, to the more complex, playing an instrument, doing complicated math, fixing an automobile, typing, programming a computer, etc. To experience high self-confidence, we have to let things count and feel good about what we can do. We can acknowledge such in the presence of others. Those with a healthy dose of self-confidence express their confidence in how they walk, talk, and hold themselves. This leads to self-efficacy which is the ability to trust oneself to learn and figure out, other things that we have yet to learn. Selfefficacy refers to our sense of effectiveness in using our basic response-powers (thinking, emoting, speaking, and actions) as we deal with the world. Those who over-do the self-confidencing may exaggerate it to the point of foolishness so that they present themselves as a know-it-all. Languaging: Those lacking self-confidence will feel unsure, indecisive, and confused. They will talk about their doubts, questions, and “not knowing.” Contexts of Origin: Our feelings of trust in our skills develop from experiences in life. Taking on too much too quickly can undermine the developmental process of learning and feeling good about developing skills. Too much criticism, and too harsh of criticism too early, can also knock the spirit and motivation out of a person. Modeling by significant persons about how to self-validate one’s skills also positively affects this meta-program. Self-Analysis: __ Low Self-Confidence / High Self-Confidence / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Self-Confidences in what: __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
- Self-Esteem:
Low conditional — High Unconditional Description: One of our most basic awareness deals with our sense of self. Our images, concepts, ideas, verbalizations, and definitions of our self pinpoints the core area from which we think, process, and perceive. Because this abstract concept of self occurs above our usual awareness, it operates outside of awareness, making it more difficult to access. When we confuse, mix and fail to distinguish between these conceptual facets of “self,” we create identity confusions that unnecessarily complicate our sense of self. Hall (1991, 1995, 1996), Nathanel Brandon (1969).
Elicitation: C Do you think of your value as a person as conditional or unconditional? C When you esteem yourself as valuable, worthwhile, having dignity, etc., do you based it upon something you do, have, or possess, or do you base it upon a given (i.e., your inherent humanity, made in God’s image and likeness, etc.)? C How solid or weak is your personal sense of your innate worth and dignity? C How easily can you say, “I am lovable, I am precious.”?
Low High Conditional Unconditional Identification: 1) Unconditional: Self-esteem refers to our sense ofworth (i.e., esteem, appraisal of value, dignity) and how we view ourselves as human beings. This esteem falls along a continuum between extremely worthless to extremely valuable, from low to high self-esteem. One may make this evaluation or appraisal of value based on conditional factors or upon unconditional factors. In either case, one’s esteeming or not-esteeming of one’s being or personhood arises from one’s belief about human beings, human worth, and one’s own personal worth. 2) Conditional: When we believe that we have to earn the right to be worthy, have dignity, and esteem ourselves highly, we make self-esteem conditional upon various factors. Because selfconfidence is conditional on our skills and abilities, we can easily confuse self-confidence and selfesteem and put self-esteem on a conditional foundation. When we suffer from low self-esteem and try to build our mental self-appraisal as a person upon the foundation of our competencies—we link our self-esteeming to temporal conditions. This puts us on a treadmill of achievement, and reflects the belief, “I will become okay as a person or human being if I achieve enough, accomplish enough, etc. or when I do.” The problem of thinking that we have to become a “somebody” is that it posits human worth and dignity conditionally upon external things. This leaves us unable to ever feel confident. With that construction, we may lose the right within ourselves to esteem ourselves of value and dignity, which then sets us up for states of self-contempt and/or egotism, as well as the idea that people, as human beings, must earn the right to treat oneself as valuable and inherently worthwhile. All of this confuses person with behavior. By contrast, to posit our self-value as a given enables us to think-and-feel in a self-forgetful and unpretentious way. It creates a healthy center of value and dignity from which to live and act. Language: Listen for statements of conditionality or unconditionality, for gauging words of degree in one’s sense of worth and dignity (low self-esteem). Listen for how a person thinks-feels about his or her self as a person and as a doer (human being/ human doing). Do you hear conditional factors? Does the esteem of the self go up and down? To pace, appeal to the person’s inherent and innate self value and dignity to reinforce the person who operates from unconditional selfesteem. Appeal to the factor/s that will expand and provide a richer and more resourceful experience. When environmental circumstances prevent us from reaching and fulfilling all of the conditions for
highly esteeming ourselves, the cognitive problems of emotionalizing and personalizing are likely to arise. Then we fall into thinking patterns of emotionalizing and personalizing, which weakens one’s sense of personal value and boundaries. We are then likely to interpret the words, behaviors and actions of others as insulting, or taking away our value and lovability. Contexts of Origin: This semantic meta-program arises from the cultures in which we grow up. The languaging that we receive from parents plays an especially crucial role in the experience of conditional or unconditional self-valuing. Almost everybody receives an unmeasurable amount of conditional self-worthing via their experiences in school, sports, life with peers, etc. Almost any hurt or trauma experience can undermine our ability to esteem our self of unconditional value, worth, dignity, lovability, etc. Self-Analysis: Conditional Self-Esteeming / Unconditional Self-Esteeming Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level (if conditional) __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
52. Self-Integrity
Conflicted Incongruity — Harmonious Integration Description: How do we evaluate our ability to live up to our values? How do we think about our ideals, and especially our ideal self, and then evaluate how well, or how poorly, we live up to those ideals? This awareness generates within us a sense of self-integration, or its lack. This involves feeling conflicted and incongruous with our highest self. Erickson (1959, 1968), Maslow (1954). Cattell (1989) says that this factor in personality works “co-extensively with Erickson’s sense of identity” and that it “… grows out of the recognition that one’s attachment, values, and beliefs tend to endure over time. It observes how well one is living up to personal ideals. Failing to live up to personal ideals results in selfdegradation, shame, or anxiety.” (p. 278) Elicitation: C How well or how poorly do you live up to your ideals? C How well do you actualize your ideal self? C Do you feel integrated, congruous, and doing well in living true to your values and visions? C Do you feel torn, conflicted, un-integrated, or incongruous? Conflicted Incongruity Harmonious Integration Identification: 1) Self-Integrity: Those who experience the comparison between their ideals and ideal self with
their actual experiences as congruous and fitting will feel that they have self-integrity. This provides a strong senseof self-acceptance and centering. It enables us to even more effectively devote mental and emotional energies for actualizing one’s values and visions. 2) Inwardly torn and conflicted: Those who lack that sense of congruence feel inwardly torn and at odds with themselves. This frequently leads to the expenditure of lots of internal energy conflicting and fighting with oneself, negative emotions, and/or negative judgments of insult toward ourselves. Languaging: Congruity shows up in personality and language when all of a person’s talk and behavior fits his or her values. The person speaks, sounds like, looks like, and behaves as though having a good, solid grasp on his or herself, his or her values, and the ability to handle the problems of reality (Ego-Strength metaprogram, #54), etc. The conflicted and incongruous shows up in all kinds of forms of incongruity—they say one thing and live another. Contexts of Origin: This meta-program derives less of its presence to the past and more to ongoing and current experiences. The more “dysfunctional” early life experiences, the more difficulty one may have in even recognizing and knowing the meaning of self-integrity and self-actualization. Self-Analysis: __ Incongruency / Congruency Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: __________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
- Responsibility Sort
Over-Responsible/ Responsible / Under-Responsible Description: Responsibility as a concept involves numerous facets. Literally referring to the ability or power to respond (response-ability), it involves the specific powers of response: thinking, feeling, speaking, and acting. In this we all areresponse-able only for ourselves. Yet whether we accept and act responsibly depends on our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs about this concept of responsibility. This meta-program also depends on our experiences around this subject. If our experiences regarding our responses have involved lots of pain, blame, accusations, and severe punishments for actual or imagined mistakes, we might be tempted to associate pain or unpleasantry with “responsibility” and feel an aversion to it. Because people think about, sort for, and perceive “responsibility” in different ways, our lens about this operates as a meta meta-program. At the center of our most basic human powers is our ability to respond. Conceptually, we can divide this ability to respond into two areas: responsibility for ourselves—for our thinking, emoting, speaking and behaving, and responsibility to others. As such, the first describes accountability, while the second describes relationship. In the first, we own and accept ourselves as accountablefor our responses. This describes our circle of response or our power zone (the zone where we truly have the ability to take action and do something). The second describes how we relate to others regarding how we speak to and treat them,
in terms of our responses to them. This describes our circle of influence with others. This provides an operatonalized definition of two concepts:responsibility foris accountability for ourselves and responsibility to is relationship to others. Those who love, desire, and want responsibility, move toward it, and view actions, speech, emotions, etc. in terms of feeling responsible for things. Others dislike it, do not want it, and find the concept aversive. They may have experienced a lot of pain associated with the idea of responsibility due to interactions with various people, especially those in any role of authority. So they move away from it, either by ignoring it, or by thinking of the opposite—how others have responsibility for things, even their own thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Hall (1989), Beattie (1987). Elicitation: C When you think about having and owning responsibility for something in a work situation or personal relationship, what thoughts, memories, and emotions come to you? C Has someone ever held you responsible for something that went wrong that felt very negative to you? C What positive experiences can you remember about someone holding you responsible for something and/or validate you as response-able?
Under-responsibility Heathy Responsibility Over-responsibility Identification: 1) Under-responsibility: Those who fail to respond appropriately for their own thinking, emoting, speaking, and behaving typically rely on others to take care of them. During the dependency of infancy and childhood, this appropriately reflects our reality. In adulthood, infantile dependency continues in those who fail to accept their own response-ability for themselves. When we perceive people and events through the meta-program lens of under- responsibility, we think of ourselves as dependent and needy. Being needy, we feel like victims of the responses of others, and so we easily turn to blaming and demanding as ways of coping. When over-done, we assume a state of entitlement and perceive others, friends, lovers, government, etc. as responsible for our happiness, employment, resourcefulness, etc. This makesfor reactivity, passivity, victim thinking, and co-dependency. 2) Over-responsibility: Those who assume too much responsibility take on caretaking roles. They often excel at problem solving, sympathizing, caring, and wanting to make things better. Over-done they become co-dependent to those relinquishing his or her responsibilities. More frequently than not, they fail to distinguish between response-ability for their arena of response and responseability to other people. When we perceive things through the meta-program lens of over-responsibility we aggress beyond our circle of response into the power zone of others. When overdone, this comes across as intrusive. It sends the message, “I don’t trust you to be responsible.” Ironically, over-responsibility to our children invites them to become under-responsible. These patterns work together to create codependency patterns where the under and over responsible people fit together like hand-andglove.
3) Healthy Responsibility. The healthy balance is to appropriately assume the ability to respond for ourselves and to others. Then we can look to, and use, appropriate context markers to let us know when to give and when to receive. To own our own response-powers is to create the foundation for being centered in ourselves and developing an internal Authority Source (#23). It is a crucial step for developing a high self-confidence that emerges in self-efficacy (SelfConfidence, #50). It then leads to being active (Somatic Response, #27), open to moving toward our goals (Motivation Direction, #35), and emotionally alive. Languaging: Over-responsible peoplecare too much and so get into care-taking and co-dependency relations. When they talk about the problems and hurts of others, they step into the state and take on the emotions that belong to others. They may not be able to listen or watch the news without feeling responsible for what’s happening, and therefore “guilty” for not doing something (actually a pseudoguilt because they have not actually done anything wrong). When they feel a need in others, they assume responsibility for them, which paradoxically further weakens the other person. The underresponsible want this kind of care, they define it as “love,” they accuse and blame if it doesn’t come, and they do not know the feeling of true independence or inter-dependency. Contexts of Origin: We are not response-able at birth at all. This develops through the years as we mature. We all start out unable to respond and are totally dependent upon our caretakers. Here family, cultural, and racial style plays an important part, as do the values we garner from these sources as well as religion, politics, school, etc. Trauma can send us either way in how we run our brain about responsibility. We can play the victim and refuse all responsibility, or we can play the great rescuer, care-taker, and adopt a messianic complex to save the world. One form of dysfunctional parenting involves training children to take care of and feel responsible for the emotions of the parents. If the child buys it, he or she will grow up and adopt two toxic beliefs. 1) My worth lies in my ability to perform for others and please them. 2) I will only get someone to love me if I take care of them and become responsible for them. Self-Analysis: __ Under-responsible / Responsible / Over-responsible Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
- Ego Strength
Unstably weak — Stably Strong Description: Ego-strength refers to the strength of our mind to face reality for whatever is. Egostrength enables us to do this without caving in, going in a fight or flight response (Stress Coping, #22), and being able to use our basic orientation toward external reality. Because we are born without an ego (sense of self), and so no ego-strength, this strength of mind develops over the years through education and experience.
Freud originally defined the “ego” as a set of cognitive and perceptual functions that serve adaptive purposes as we learn to cope with our environments. The ego moves out into voluntary movement at its command for the task of preservation and effectiveness. Cattell (1989) writes, “The ego is a problem-solving structure that mediates between needs and the environment . . . it recognizes tension that signifies existence and the strength of an inner need . . .” (p. 40) Intelligence, the ability to make accurate discriminations, lies at the heart of “ego strength.” It is with the development of our understanding about life, people, ourselves, and the world that we develop the strength of our sense of self to face things, cope, and even master the challenges thrown our way. As the ability to face the ups-and-downs of every day life, ego-strength speaks of our inner resources, sense of power, self-efficacy, self-confidence, and inner locus of control (Authority Source metaprogram, #23). Along a continuum of the strength or energy of one’s “ego” to identify reality for what it is, address it, cope with it and find a way to effectively respond to it, we can measure the degree of that strength. On one end we may have almost no ability to look reality in the face, accept it on its own terms, and expend energy to deal with it. On the other end we may have lots of ability to face and address reality. At the high end, we can “face the facts” of life as we find them, without falling apart. We can do so without wasting time in feeling angry, upset, frustrated, depressed, or whining. Cattell (1989). Elicitation: C When you think about some difficulty arising in everyday life, a disappointment, problem, frustration that will block your progress, etc., what usually comes to your mind? C How do you feel about such events? C How do you typically respond to internal needs or external hardships? C Where do your mind-and-emotions go when you face a problem?
Unstable ego-strength Stable ego-strength Low — weak, easily stressed High — strong, high stress tolerance Identification: 1) Unstable Ego-Strength: This describes how we all responded during infancy and childhood; the childish coping style of throwing tantrums, raging when frustrated, and an intolerance of delays, etc. We easily and quickly felt frustrated by the tiniest little annoyance and so became unstable in the face of difficulties. In unstable ego-strength, we can perceive almost anything as a “difficulty,” we worry and fret about it, feel insecure, unstable, emotionally distressed, etc. 2) Stable Ego-Strength: This is the ability to take a more philosophical attitude toward life and progress toward any worthwhile goal, knowing that this will involve expecting and accepting problems, road-blocks, problems to solve, etc. In the face of such undesired occurrences, they stay calm, cool, unruffled, and objective. They immediately go into problem-solving mode in a matter-offact way, without wasting a lot of time fuming and fretting. Ellis (1975) writes, “The world has great difficulties and injustices, but you don’t have to whine or make yourself furious about them.” Languaging: Expect to find lots of associated negative emotions in those who operate from low egostrength. They will delay and procrastinate, hate and guilt, and contempt themselves, others, life, etc.
They will feel panicky, act impulsively and reactively, and quickly alternate in their moods. Expect to hear and see more objectivity, flexibility, and a problem-solving orientation in those who operate from a highly developed ego-strength. They work patiently, with endurance, and avoid all of the melodramatic drama characteristic of the other side of the continuum. They acknowledge the problem without undue delay and confront it with a sense of mastery and pleasure. Contexts of Origin. Physiological determinants for this meta-program concern neurological wellbeing and normal brain development as one moves through the Piagetian cognitive development stages. Those who do not become developmentally delayed or retarded live their lives at the concrete thinking stage, or earlier and so experience little “ego strength.” Brain lesions, cancers, and damage can put any of us back into that place. Learning factors that contribute to low ego-strength instability include the lack of good role models, deficiencies in education, and the lack of good support group, etc. Good ego strength arises through learning, discipline, skill development, support systems, etc. Trauma, especially chronic or acute trauma situations (e.g. war, rape, molestation, sexual abuse, etc.) can so overwhelm a person’s coping skills and reality testing abilities, that one can experience much instability in terms of ego strength. Self-Analysis: __ Unstable / Stable Contexts: __ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
55. Morality
Weak — Strong — Overly-strong Super-Ego Description: This meta-program deals with how we sort for morality and ethical concepts. Some continually sort for and perceive moral issues everywhere. Others seem to operate as if there’s no such thing as morality or ethics. Freud defined the super-ego as the internalized set of rules that enables us to evaluate behaviors and actions in terms of “right” and “wrong.” How do we frame an activity that helps and enhances or that hurts and sabotages ourselves or another? What is ethical or moral fits the mores that any culture has come to value as promoting the common good. Here is another seemingly innate, and therefore a priori, category in the “mind”—our inescapable awareness, choice, and ability to evaluate behavior in terms of ethics and morality. This kind of “knowing” is related to knowing about the quality of our actions (Quality of Life, #59), their effects (Time Zones, future meta-program, #57) and the consequences they have on others (Attention meta-program, others, #24). Do we behave in a “good” or “bad” way in terms of the societal rules and spiritual beliefs that govern our culture. These meta-programs concern the “spiritual,” “conscience,” morality, etc. The affinity toward guilt, innocence, righteousness, worthiness, etc. describes this meta metaprogram. Some people sort for guilt, wrongness, badness, shame, and worthlessness in nearly every action; others seem to never perceive that any action could be wrong. Along a continuum we can plot an anti-social lack of conscience to guilt-proneness or conscientiousness. Kohlberg (1980).
Elicitation: C What do you think about misbehaviors that hurt and violate others? C What do you think or feel when you discover that you acted inappropriately and violated some legitimate value that you hold or that your culture holds? C When you think about messing up, doing something embarrassing, stupid, socially inept, etc., what thoughts-and-feelings flood your consciousness? C How conscientious are you of following the rules and conforming to what’s right?
Unconscientious Conscientious Low sense of morality and ethics High sense and awareness Identification: 1) Unconscientious: Those who have a poorly developed super-ego do not recognize or sort for actions that could be wrong and induce guilt—the violation of a true moral standard. So they disregard obligations, rules, ethics, morals, etc. They live self-indulgently, narcisstically, disrespectfully, choosing whatever they find expedient for their immediate goals without consideration of others or regard to the consequences of their actions on others. Others can’t depend on their moral consciousness to do “the right thing.” Over-done this leads to the criminal mind lacking any “conscience,” what we call sociopathic. The unconscientious can lie, cheat, misbehave, undermine moral standards, etc. and do so without any “pangs of conscience.” They seem to have little to no internal guidance system about morals or their influence on others. They develop a “personality” style that we think of as amoral or antisocial. Once they have constructed a way of thinking-feeling and acting (“personality”) designated as the “antisocial personality” (DSM IV,Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), they seem callous in hurting others, lacking any sense of empathy for the distresses of others, seem almost unable to learn from their own mistakes, lacking appropriate fear about consequences, and may develop beliefs that validate their right to take advantage of, or even hurt, others. (“It’s a jungle out there, so do to others before they do to you.”) 2) Conscientious: Those who have a well-developed super-ego sort for the rightness or wrongness of events, especially those that truly fulfill or violate moral standards. This internalized moral consciousness makes them responsible (Responsibility meta-program, #53) and personally disciplined. Out of their strong sense of duty, they will be moralistic, and they will be unresponsive to the lure of immediate pleasures to do wrong. When over-done, their conscientiousness can create a guilt-proneness so that any mistake or expression of fallibility evokes within them feelings of badness, wretchedness, condemnation, etc. Languaging: The conscientious will talk about doing “the right thing,” the “responsible act,” of doing what they say, etc. They may have a strong sense of spirituality or religion and believe that right actions play an important role in the universe. They think and talk about consequences and effects on others. Those who over-do this may adapt a “self-righteous” style, sometimes in a fanatical and rigid way, develop a distorted view of self, and fail to see their own fallibilities. These are the people who become fanatics. Others who over-do it develop obsessive-compulsiveness in their focus on orderliness, cleanliness, etc.
Contexts of Origin: This high level construct is almost entirely dependent upon the contexts of culture, politics, religion, family, etc. Some neurological studies suggest genetic deficiency in those who later develop sociopathic ways of thinking-feeling and living indicating a predisposition to such. Pain and pleasure conditioning factors in early childhood surrounding the moral training of recognition of the rights of others, respect for human life and property, development of empathy, etc. obviously play a crucial role. The stereotype of the Obsessive-Compulsive cleaner that arose from the field of psychoanalysis suggests someone who may have felt “dirty” via some form of sexual abuse. Self-Analysis: __ Weak super ego (Unconscientious) Strong super-ego Contexts: / Strong super-ego Conscientious / Overly __ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
- Self-Monitoring
Low External — High Internal Description: In his Multiple Intelligences model, Howard Gardner originally identified7 intelligencesamong them isintra-personal intelligence.4 This speaks about the ability and awareness to know oneself, to turn inward and to recognize when one is experiencing emotions, desires, wants, impulses, etc. It takes intrapersonal intelligence just to recognize one’s thoughts, to “go inside” and apply ideas, principles, and concepts to oneself. All of this implies the ability to monitor oneself, to take one’s psychological pulse so to speak. As we differ in our ability to perceive ourselves in this way, we can view self-monitoring as a meta-program operating as one of our a perceptual filters. How well do we monitor ourselves? If we considering self-monitoring as a perceptual filter on a continuum from low to high we can then gauge the degree of self-monitoring. If our perception is low, we will be more externally focused, if high then more internally focused. Gardner (2004). Elicitation: C What are you feeling right now? What are you thinking? C What mental-and-emotional patterns are your strengths? C What are some of your weaknesses that you want to deal with? C How much do you monitor yourself as you feel stressed or relaxed, selfconscious or self-forgetful, angry, fearful, joyful, social, sexual, etc.?
Low self-monitory, external High, internal Identification: 1) Low external:People who are low on self-monitoring will have difficulty telling you what they
think or how they feel. Typically when they say, “I don’t know,” they really do not because they have not taken the time to turn inward to discover their internal states. On the extreme, some may not even know how to turn inside to discover their thoughts and so may need counseling or coaching to assist them in developing that skill. Because their attention to turned outward rather than inward, they will probably be more skilled socially, may be more extroverted in recharging their batteries (Rejuvenation meta-program, #26), and may prefer people and activities (Preference, #39) 2) High internal: People who are high on self-monitoring more easily know their own thinking, emotions, needs, impulses, choices, and inner world. Turning inward is easy for them. They will be more highly attuned to themselves. If they are mostly at peace inside their inner world, they will more typically be able to understand and empathize with others and be able to manage and control their impulses, needs, and desires. If, however, they are inwardly conflicted, their experience can be one of painful self-awareness that they feel they can’t get away from. Language: As you identify the amount of language that a person uses, which presupposes selfmonitoring and inter-personal awareness, begin by matching your awareness words for internal or external and then lead to the other side of the continuum depending on the subject and the purpose of your communications. Contexts of Origin: Self-Analysis: __ Low Self-Monitoring, External — High Self-Monitoring, Internal Contexts: __ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
57. Time Zones
Past, Present, Future Description: Centuries ago, philosopher Immanuel Kant (1787) described time is an a priori category of the human mind, something innate and not invented by us. If “time” is ana priori category then it exists in us innately, something we are born with. It is that close to us. So no wonder Kant thought it was innate. Yet in actuality, it is invented. Time is a construct we create by representing events and then comparing those events in our mind. So what we actually represent and compare is not “time,” but events. Yet because this construct is something very close to our sense of self and reality, we live our lives and draw our conclusions from the events that we experience. In the Matrix model, we have put time as one of the core content matrices.3 It is by comparing and measuring events against each other that we construct the concept of “time.” This makes time another one of our meta-awarenesses. How we processtimedetermines how we understand time as a concept at various metalevels, how we experience it at the primary level as events and rhythms, and how we respond to it. The characteristics that we represent about our understandings of this concept include such qualities as: direction, duration, orientation, continuity, etc.
Therefore as something out in the world, “time” does not exist. What does exist “out there” in the world are events—happenings, actions, and behaviors. Inside our minds are our representations and concepts about those events. We invent what we call “time,” and our sense of time, as we compare events. From events, we represent a sequence of activities—things that have happened, that are happening, and that will happen. In this way we create the concept of time. As we now distinguish between events that have already occurred, those now occurring, and those that will occur, a sense of time emerges in us. This gives us the ability to recognize the temporal dimension. In most, but not all cultures people sort for three central time zones. tenses as well, in the temporal tenses These also show up in the linguistic of the past, present, and future. Conceptually, a fourth kind of “time” occurs—the atemporal. James and Woodsmall (1988). Bodenhamer & Hall (1997a). Elicitation: C Where do you put most of your attention—on the past, present, or future? C If you were to divide “time” into a circle, how much of your mental and emotional life do you live in the past, the present, and the future? Is it 30%, 40%, and 30%? C How do you have your time-line coded in terms of past, present, and future? C If you closed your eyes and pointed to where the past seems to be, where do you point? C Where is the future? Where is now? C Do you have any of the “time” zones represented as right in front of you?
Past Present Future Identification: 1) Past. People who live a lot of time in the past time zone think about what they have experienced and what those experiences or events mean to them. They use a lot of past references and past tenses in their language. History carries a lot of weight for them as does tradition. These people correspond to the “feelers” in the Myers-Briggs instrument. Yapko (1992) suggests that “past temporal orientation,” which is thinking of things in relation to the past, is a key to understanding depression. Clients who become unduly embittered about the past will inevitably become passive about the future because they believe that some historical event has imprisoned them. Regardless of your actual or chronological age, how old do you feel? Those who think and act as if they were old typically give more attention to their past than their future. The most resourceful use of the past is to learn from it in preparation for the future. 2) Present. Those who live in today, in the now, have a more present-tense orientation in the way they talk and reference things. They are the ones who are seizing the day. When overdone, the person may live in the now to such an extent that he or she fails to think consequentially of future results or goals. This person corresponds to the Myers-Briggs category of “sensor.” Jung labeled them “sensors” because they use their senses in the present moment. Actually, today is the only time we have. This makes coming back to the now critical. What matters today? What can I do now that will enrich the quality of my life and set me in the direction that fits my values and visions?
3) Future. Those who live in the future conceptually focus on what is yet to happen, on their dreams, visions, and hopes. Future tenses and references centrally govern their perceptions. When overdone they project themselves and their consciousness so much into the future, and fail to make plans for today for that desired future. These correspond to the Myers-Briggs “intuitors” inasmuch as they forever attempt to intuit about tomorrow and the future. 4) Atemporal. Temporal refers to time and so atemporal describes those who live outside of a “time” consciousness. Sometimes they correspond to the MyersBriggs “thinkers.” Language: Speak to the “time” tense that predominates in the person’s language patterns. Our emoting about time depends entirely upon whether we have our movie representations of events past, present, or future coded so that we are inside them or if we have stepped outside of the movie to watch it. It also depends on the specific meanings (positive or negative) that we give to “time.” If we get stuck in the future “time” zone, or overly worry about future events, we can fall into the cognitive distortion of “prophesying the future.” Like mindreading, this cognitive distortion involves jumping to conclusions about life, others, fate, the universe, God, etc. We speak about what will happen in the future—without any qualification, without tempering it in any way, in an all-ornothing way. Contexts of Origin: “Time” represents another high level construct that grows according to how we think and feel about past events, current happenings, and possible future events. Cultural, racial, religious, and family definitions about “time,” about which “time” zone one should live in, and has permission to live in also affects this. Trauma typically keeps most people locked into the “past” trying to finish an event that they didn’t like the way it finished. Self-Analysis: __ Past / Present / Future / Atemporal Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
58. Time Experience
In-Time Random — Through-Time Sequential Description: How we code our sense of historical “time” and its duration from event to event over a period of “time” creates our representational image or icon of it. This typically takes the form of a time-line of some sort. Other configurations for representing time include: circles, photo albums, boomerangs, etc. The line is typical for people of most cultures. This line metaphor leads us to either perceive our time-line as moving through us (through our body), so that we actually feel caught up in it. This describes the intime style and leads to experiencing “time” in an associated way (we have stepped into it, Movie Position, #20). This means experiencing time as an eternal now, ever-present, all around us, and ourselves as forever participating in it.
If the time-line does not go through our body, but stays apart from us, so that we live out-of-time, then we have a through-time style. If we code our time-line as outside of us, and at some distance, then we have a more objective, clear, metaposition to “time.” This would better be called theout-oftimestyle because when we arein time at the primary level, we are not aware of the comparison of events. We are fully engaged with only one event. When we step out and notice events, we are out-oftime. We step into a meta-position to time. These facets of our representation processing reflect how we encode and store memories. From these ways of processing time, the past, present, and future, we develop a style for how we access our memories of the past. Two overall patterns prevail: those who use a random accessing style and those who use a sequential accessing style. Bodenhamer and Hall (1997 Time-Lining). Elicitation: C Take a moment to relax, to feel inwardly calm, and allow yourself to recall a memory of something that occurred sometime in your past That’s right. Think of some small and simple activity like brushing your teeth or going to work, something that you have doneregularly for years and years. Now as you think about that . . . Think about doing that activity say 20 years ago, then 10, then 5, last year, then today . . . Just be with those thoughts and memories whether they are pictures, sounds, or sensations. . . . Good. Now imagine that same set of actions occurring next week, next year, then off into your future, to 2 years from now, 5 years, 10 years. That’s right. Good. Now open your eyes and step out of that state and shake it off. Good. Now, here’s a question for you, if you were to step back or step above where you put the past, present, and future, where are those places in space for you? Point to the direction of your past. Now to your future. C How do you measure your sense of time past, present, and future? C How do you tell the difference between events that have already occurred, those now occurring, and those that will occur?
In-time Primary time: Lost in “Time” Random, Eternal moment Through-time Meta time: Out of “Time” Sequential Identification: 1) Through or Out-of-Time are those who use a Through-Time or the Out-ofTime pattern do so from left to right, or up to down so that we sequence time along a continuum so that we can discern steps or stages along a pathway. This line may extend a long or a short way. It is sequential and continuous so that the person has an awareness of time’s duration. They typically have their memories encoded in a way that allows them to observe the movie from outside. Time for them seems linear in that it has length. This corresponds to the Myers-Briggs “judger” inasmuch as we judge or evaluate time as we organize and sequence it. In the Through-Time style we typically experience a sequential perception about events and “time.” We will like structures, rules, protocols, clocks that keep time, and procedures. We will approach thinking, deciding, buying, etc. in a systematic manner and appreciate a well-established presentation sequence. Through-Time encourages sequential accessing. This results when we code our memories in a linear way so that we can connect them and put them in an order. The more we do this, the more we will not move from one memory to another randomly, but sequentially. We may view the events on our time-line like the cross-ties on a railroad track. Sequential storage makes it more difficult to
access memories, we may have to start somewhere else and then move linearly until we get to a memory. 2) In-Time: People who use the In-Time way of storing time typically put their pasts behind them and their future in front of them. Whether their time-line extends from front to back, or up to down, the line will go through their body so that they will be in the line. They will typically encode their memories by stepping inside the movies and associating into it and so will not have much awareness of the duration of events. When we arein-time we will more easily get caught up in “the eternal now,” so that we will not know time (chronological “time”). This style corresponds to the Myers-Briggs “perceiver.” In the In-Time style we more likely sort things out randomly. We often go off on tangents and have less regard for time constraints. By sorting randomly we enjoy bouncing creative brainstorming, etc. interrupting and asking off-the-wall, and out-of-sequence questions. In-Time encourages random accessing. We will randomly accesses memories, easily jump from one memory to another. Our memories will be stored in an unconnected way so that we can quickly and directly jump across boundaries of time, subject matter, and people. In the random access style, we organize memories by comparing different events that occurred at different times jumping back and forth inside the memories. ideas around, making new connections and insights, We will frequently seem tangential, all over the place, Languaging: Listen for sequential kind of words, terms, and phrases in those who use Through-Time. Listen for randomness, chaos, and tangential terms in those who liveIn-Time. Because they are more able to step out of time and experiences the Through-Time processors will express themselves more objectively. Their emotions will be more appropriate to the event and experiencing it from the inside rather than being caught-up in the event. In-Time processors will come across with more associated and primary emotions as well as inappropriate emoting. If this becomes a problem, assist the person to learn sequential accessing, “Imagine your past as a photo album and that you can now flip back through the pages of your history and just allow your unconscious mind to surprise you as your past history unfolds one memory at a time.” Contexts of Origin: These programs arise to a great extent from our cultural experiences in community. Generally, we think of In-Time as an expression of Eastern consciousness and ThroughTime as an expression of Western consciousness. In more recent history, the West has been characterized more and more by assembly lines, schedules, day-timers, etc. The meta-programs of options and procedures (Operational Style, #36) significantly contributes to this, so does right and left hemisphere dominance, and stepping in and stepping out of experiences (Movie Position, #20). Self-Analysis: __ In Time / Through Time / Both __ Random Accessing / Sequential Accessing Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships
__ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
59. Quality of life
Be — Do — Have Description: What’s your perspective about life and about living and experiencing a high quality of life? Do you have the sense (belief, perception) that life is about being, doing, or having or some combination of these? How do you perceive life and its quality in terms of being, doing, and having? To see the quality of life in terms of any of these ideas generates different lifestyles, choices, emotions, and focus. These three perspectives create different lifestyles and values. Elicitation: C To what extent do you think of yourself in terms of what you do, what you have, or what you experience in your being? C What is the quality of your performance? C What is the quality of your possession? C What is the quality of your experience? C Which is more important to you: being, doing, or having? C Are your goals mostly goals about being, doing, or having?
Doing Having Being Identification: 1) Doing is a very active focus and perspective. This meta-program describes those who are very performance and achievement oriented (Dominance, #29). For them, life is about doing. The doing meta-program makes a person task oriented, can lead to great self-confidence (Self-Confidence, #50) in what one can do, and to the active meta-program (Somatic Response, #27). 2) Having is the focus of possession, owning, and claiming as one’s own possession. Here the values of wealth, possessions, status, riches, etc. are highly valued as what’s most important. The danger in defining life in terms of having is that we may posit our value and esteem as a person upon it (SelfEsteem metaprogram, conditional, #51). 3) Being is a much more internal focus as we turn our focus on the value of experiencing in and of itself. This corresponds with the Unconditional SelfEsteem meta-program where we recognize the worth and value of our beingness as a given (Self-Esteem, #51). The perspective of being as the critical factor in the quality of life encourages both E.Q. and S.Q. (emotional and spiritual intelligence) and an appreciation of meditation, not doing, etc. Language: Listen for the key words (doing, having, and being) and their synonyms. Who are you? I am a software engineer (performance). I am a homeowner (possession), I am a happy person (being). (Contributed by Richard Matthew)
Contexts of Origin: What and how we learn what’s important in life forms this meta meta-program. The contexts of early family and school life often set our frames for evaluating how to evaluate the importance and meaning of the quality of life. Self-Analysis: __ Have Contexts: — Be — Do — Balanced __ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
60. Values
Description: The word value is a nominalization. Given that, what is the verb that hides within? It is the process of valuing. Our “values” arise from our thoughts, ideas, understandings, and emotions about what we treat and view as important (e.g., significant and meaningful). It is via our valuation thoughts and emotions that we appraise things, people, experiences, qualities, ideas, etc. as important in living up to the standards or criteria that we want and ideas we believe in. Yet what are “values?” Are values meta-programs? Are they beliefs, representations, understandings, etc.? Values asabstractions of importancearise at a meta-level when we think thoughts of “value, importance, and significance,” about other thoughts or experiences. In other words, we apply a state of value to our representations of a person, place, thing, event, idea, etc. and this meta-stating energizes and intensifies those representations. At that point we experience metastates of appreciation, joy, concern, love, desire, etc. about these nominalized abstractions (i.e., our values). This means that a domain of some of the most powerful meta-states is the domain that we commonly call “values.” Figure 9:3
In the process of appraising something and giving it a “value” we are believing in the importance and significance of that value. We are giving ourselves to the value, trusting in it, andacting on it. These verbs in italics actually describe what we do when we value something or someone. Consequently, our beliefs-aboutvalues organize our life and structure it with meaning. Structurally, a value contains
at least a two-level phenomenon. At the primary level, we encode our thoughts in some meta-program format (global or specific, one of the representational systems, match or mismatch, etc.). Then above and beyond that meta-program format, we have a thought of importance and significance about it. What does all of this mean for meta-programs? As a frame by implication, it means that we value every meta-program that we use regularly and habitually. Value is built into usage and continuance. Does a person think globally? Then expect that person to perceive global thinking as valuable. Does a person mismatch? Bet on that person valuing the ability to sort for differences. Does a person primarily move away from dis-values? Anticipate discovering that they actually have many reasons and motivations for engaging in such thinking. Within our meta-programs themselves we can detect many of our values, especially our driver meta-programs. James and Woodsmall (1988). Andreas and Andreas (1987), Hall (2000). Elicitation: C What’s important to you? C What do you think is the most significant thing about X? (e.g., a job, relationship, idea, etc.) C What do you invest your time, energy, and money in? C What are the things you act on every day?
Low Value High Value Identification: Maslow (1950) created a hierarchical list of emotional values that play a critical role in our drives, urges, and motivation: survival, security, love and affection, belonging, self-esteem and regard, and self-actualization. These do not exhaust the possible list of motivating values that we may adopt in life. Many other nominalized abstractions serve as values: power, control, achievement, affiliation, transcendence, ease, pleasure, romance, sex, knowledge, religion, harmony, challenge, etc. Whatever we believe holds significance, we transform into a value: politics, physical fitness, confrontation, non-confrontation, children, volunteering, reading, etc. Languaging: To listen carefully to the nominalizations of abstract values that people believe and value alerts us to their values. To do this, plant the question in your mind, “What motivating value us revealed in these words?” Listen for the value words and those that imply values, listen for semantically loaded words. Ask yourself, C What do I sense, from these words and expressions, holds value for this person? C What values seem most central? C What values does this person seem to go toward? C What values does he or she move away from? To pace and communicate with a person with influence, appeal to the person’s values. People cannot but respond to their own values. Laborde (1989) describes a person’s value words as “the correct passwords to [the other’s] reality.” Values carry a lot of emotional impact and work as anchors for inducing us into the states we value. Look for people to emotionally step into their movies when they
speak about their truest values. Contexts of Origin: Generally we learn to value whatever brings us pleasure and protects us from harm or pain. We also learn to valueanything that fits with and supports any meta-program that we have already installed. Every meta-program reflects a value. Global thinkers value the big picture, detail thinkers value specifics, etc. We adopt many values also due to the family, cultural, religious, political, and racial contexts within which we live—unless we dis-identify with it. Self-Analysis:
Power Dignity Control Feeling good Independence Connection __ Toward Values / Away From Values — Means Values / End Values Contexts: Summary C We do not only have meta-programs by which we perceive things, we also have programs meta to those perceptual filters. These higher metaprograms are the semantic states or frames that set various concept frames for the mental-emotional matrix of frames.
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level Make a List of one’s hierarchy of values: __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No Control Love Actualization Achieving Competence Affiliation Peace Sex Status Equality Safety Understanding Romance Optimism Intelligence People cannot but respond to their own values. Values carry a lot of emotional impact and work as anchors for inducing us into the states we value. C Among the highest meta-programs are those belief and value frames around the way we semantically have mapped our understandings about Self, Others, Time, and Value.
