Derren Brown: Archive
| Message ID: 02119 | [ Previous ] [ Next ] [ Up Thread ] |
From: ganetauk
Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 10:43pm
Subject: 4 milton model ....art of vague :o) ....can you pass me the salt?
The Milton Model:
Mind Reading - Claiming to know the thoughts or feelings of another
with-out specifying the process by which you came to know the
information, e.g. 'I know that you are wondering.
Lost Performative - Value judgements, omitting the performer or
holder of the value judgement, e.g. 'And it's good to remember...'
Cause and Efrect - The implication that one thing causes another. We
commonly use implied cause and effect statements, such
as 'If...then', `As you ... then you...'. Other cause-effect words
include 'because' and 'make'. We often accept cause and effect
statements without questioning the logical relationship.
Complex Equivalence - When two things have equivalent meanings,
e.g. 'You are old. You can't relate to young children'. Or, 'You've
been going for hours. You must be tired.' One thing means something
else.
Presuppositions - The linguistic equivalent of assumptions. 'You are
learning a lot . . .'.You assume the presupposition true.
Universal Quantifiers A set of words which have a universal or
absolute character. 'And all the employees. . .', or 'You will
never...'.
Modal Operators - Words which imply possibility or necessity, and
which form our rules in life. 'You can learn . . .'
(possibility). 'You must come . . .' (necessity). 'You should
learn . . .' (implied necessity). Parental or educational
conditioning tends to reinforce modal operators of necessity, e.g.
you must, you need to, etc.
Nominalisations - Process words which have frozen in time thus
turning into nouns, e.g.'. . . provide you with new understandings.'
(Meaning: 'You will understand [verb]'). Credible, respectable words
like education, independence, respect, relationship, insight, may
fall into this common category. Attempting to define nominalisations
using a dictionary soon indicates their potential for vague, but
purposeful communication.
Unspecified Verbs - `And you can ...' The process word (verb) lacks a
complete description. What, how or when you can remains unspecified.
Tag Question - A question added after a statement, designed to
displace resistance, e.g. 'Can you not?'
Lack of Referential Index - A phrase which does not identify who or
what the speaker refers to, e.g. 'One should, you know.'
Comparative Deletions (Unspecified Comparison) - Where the comparison
has no attribution - you do not know what or who it relates to,
e.g. `And it's more or less the right thing.' Or, `That's not so bad.'
Pacing Current Experience - Where you describe the person's
experience (verifiable, external) in an undeniable way, e.g. `You are
sitting here, listening to me, looking at me.' This simple device can
help to create rapport.
Double Binds - This pattern creates the `illusion of choice',
e.g. `Would you prefer to make that change now or simply let it
happen as we talk?' Or, `Your unconscious mind is learning something
else and I don't know whether you'll discover just what you've
learnt ... now, in a few moments from now, or some time later . . .'.
In the first illustration the attention focuses on the presupposed
choice (now or later), not questioning the presupposition (to
change). In the second illustration the attention focuses on when you
will discover what you have learnt, not questioning the
presupposition that you will learn something else.
Conversational Postulate - The communication takes the form of a
question, inviting either a `yes' or a `no' response. It allows you
to choose to respond or not and avoids authoritarianism, e.g. `Could
you just look up for a moment?' Or `'Can you move a little to the
left?' We tend to look up or move to the left, rather than answer yes
or no.
Extended Quotes - `Last week I talked to Tony who told me about the
exhibition in Birmingham when he talked to someone who said...'. A
series of contexts called `chaining' tends to overload the conscious
mind and dissociate the speaker from what he or she says. As well as
depersonalising a communication, a quote can have an impact out of
all proportion to its `pedigree', as public speakers and other
influencers know well. And `chaining' quotes and anecdotes can
enhance this effect.
Selectional Restriction Violation - A badly conceived, illogical
statement that does not make sense, e.g. `A chair can have
feelings.' (Only humans and animals can have feelings.)
Ambiguities:
I. Phonological - juxtaposing homonyms (e.g. `Hear', `'Here') can
cause confusion and direct attention unconsciously to the out-of-
context meaning (i.e. `Hear, hear' used after a speech).
II. Syntactic - When you cannot determine the function (syntactic) of
the word in a sentence from the immediate context, e.g.'They are
visiting relatives' (`Visiting' -a verb or an adjective?). Or, `They
are training consultants' (Training - a verb or an adjective?).
III. Scope - When you cannot determine by linguistic context how much
one portion of a sentence applies to another portion, e.g. 'Speaking
to you as a child (Who does 'as a child' refer to? The speaker or
hearer?). Or, 'The disturbing noises and thoughts . . .' (To which
does 'disturbing'relate?).
IV. Punctuation - (a)Run-on sentences: `...want you to notice your
hand me the glass' or `Notice your wearing a watch what you are
doing'. (b) Pauses: `So you are feeling ...(pause).... better now?'
(c) Incomplete sentences: `So you are ... If you can change that,
then perhaps ......'
Utillsation - Using spoken words or immediate happenings around in
your communication, e.g. `...and the sound of the traffic in the
distance...'.
You will find some of these Milton patterns self-explanatory. Others
need further explanation and examples. Some do not
constitute 'proper grammar' but this usually goes unnoticed in speech
and need not reduce the effect of a communication. Now let us discuss
some of the more popular patterns below, giving examples of how you
can use them for better communication.
Cause and Effect and Complex Equivalence
Sometimes these overlap. Cause and effect, however, has a time
implication - effect follows cause in time. In the case of a complex
equivalence, the equivalence exists in parallel or concurrently.
For example: 'She makes me laugh', 'He is driving me to drink'
and 'Poetry inspires me' all deal with cause and effect. In other
words, A causes B, and B follows A.
However, 'She turns up late, so she must be disorganised', 'She
smokes, so she can't be health-conscious' and 'He must be clever, he
got an A grade' all deal with something having equivalence to, or
meaning something else. Note that 'be' or 'is' implies total
identity. You can communicate equivalence, if useful for your
communication outcome, using these artfully vague language patterns.
Universal Quantifiers
A whole range of 'universal' words suggest this pattern -'all',
tevery', 'none', 'nothing', 'no one', 'nobody', 'never', 'ever'.
These words give no room for exceptions, however inaccurate the
implication, e.g. 'You always say that' or 'You never appreciate what
I do.' Because the pattern usually contains one of this shortlist
of 'universals' you will easily spot it. However, sometimes a
universal quantifier implies universality even when we do not use the
actual words. For example, 'Teenagers are lazy' implies or could
certainly suggest that all teenagers 'are' ( a 'to be'
verb 'identifier') lazy. 'Fast driving kills' provides another
example. These imply a universally true statement. Thus,
deliberately vague language can bring about a worthwhile outcome (in
the above case, not to drive fast). These implied universals come in
many shapes and sizes. They may not actually involve 'universal'
words, so you will need more skill to recognise them. By the same
token, when you use them 'deliberately vaguely', the more you can con-
ceal the language pattern, the better. To fulfil your purpose you
need to make the statement appear to stand up to logical analysis.
For example, the statement 'Achieving budget means promotion' might
well motivate a junior salesperson. (Did you also spot the complex
equivalence? In fact, one phrase may comprise several Milton
patterns.) On the other hand, 'Achieving budget always means
promotion' might not stand up to logical analysis. It might
therefore set off alarm bells, failing to convince and motivate. In
general, you may well find that a statement incorporating a
presupposition or implication avoids an otherwise negative response
and loss of rapport. Thus you can bring about your communication
outcome without objections. In fact, you can use both expressed and
implied universality as a powerful communication tactic. For
example:
'We all win'
'Nobody loses'
'It always works'
'It happens every time'
'You can't [implying ever] fail' 'Everybody can do it'
'Japanese cars [implying all are reliable'
and so on. Purposeful generalisation or vagueness, often a
description of Milton patterns, can thus bring about your
communication outcome. The outcome, of course, rather than language
used (or the process), determines effectiveness. Or, in terms of the
communication presupposition you have already met, 'The meaning of a
communication is the response it gets'.
Presuppositions
Language abounds with presuppositions and in practice we could hardly
carry on ordinary communication without presupposing all sorts of
things. We can use them more positively, however, for more effective
communication. We use surface-level language all the time, essential
for 'economical' everyday language and 'getting things done'. In a
similar way presuppositions, as well as making for grammatical
economy, help us to get things done - achieve outcomes. First you
need to spot them, and what they mean - what the speaker or writer
presupposes. For example:
'When you give this more thought you will agree.' (presupposes that
you have already given it some thought)
'Jean telephones me every week.' (presupposes you don't telephone
enough)
'At least he did his best.' (presupposes not good enough)
'Eli flapped his wings.' (presupposes Eli is a bird or winged object
or being)
Note that a single statement may contain several presuppositions. In
the last case, for example: Eli had wings to flap; he owned them; he
had two or more wings; he belonged to the male gender; and so on.
The more presuppositions you can embody in a communication, the
greater the possibility of achieving your outcome by artful
vagueness. You can also incorporate (or watch out for, if receiving
a communication) other Milton patterns in the same statement. For
instance, whose wings did he flap? Does the statement refer to a man-
made flying contraption, an insect, or an angel? Did he flap once or
continuously? On terra firma or in the sky (ambiguities if not
presupposed)? Check through a magazine or newspaper article and see
how many presuppositions you can spot. Once familiar with their
universal power in language, you can begin to use presuppositions
deliberately, as part of a communication strategy. Similarly, when
receiving a communication, recognising a presupposition allows you to
question for further specific meaning, as we shall learn from the
Meta Model. When you use presuppositions skilfully your listeners or
readers tend to accept the presupposition in order to make sense of
the sentence. Bypassing resistance in this way enables you to jump
several rungs of the ladder towards your communication outcome.
Often the specifics or deep meaning do not add to the purpose of the
communication in any event, and might in fact obscure it. So,
paradoxically, your vague language has a greater effect. Milton
language enhances this effectiveness by addressing the unconscious
mind, especially when your desired outcome involves a change in
attitude or long-standing behaviour.
When achieving outcomes by using Milton language, bear in mind the
need for ecology. Check back if you need to. Win-lose
communications, such as may happen in negotiation or selling, at best
give short-term advantages, and can end up spoiling relationships.
