| |
| |
| |
| |
These usually indicate a simultaneous incongruence between the conscious (verbal) words and the unconscious (nonverbal), although a person can also express the nonverbal sequentially. If a person says, “I can do that,” in a whining voice and slumped shoulders, (or they follow the statement with these nonverbals) it is pretty likely that they don't actually believe it, and will not actually do it. As with all NLP work, the nonverbal is often a much better indicator of the unconscious aspects of behavior, and what is actually going on. As John Grinder used to say, “All words are to be taken as unsubstantiated rumor unless confirmed by nonverbal behavior.” The verbal MO may or may not be a reliable indicator of the actual MO being experienced. Sensitivity to the nonverbal indicators of the MO opens us to much more reliable information about the client's experience.
There is a useful training exercise we have used for years that can sensitize trainees to both verbal and nonverbal MOs. In groups of 3, one person says a sentence using one kind of MO (or its negation) verbally, while simultaneously expressing a different kind of MO (or its negation) nonverbally. One of the others in the trio identifies the verbal MO, and the other the nonverbal MO—and later each of the others identifies both. The same exercise can be modified by asking the person to say a sentence with one MO, and then sequentially expressing another MO nonverbally, to sensitize trainees to this.
| |
| |
| |
| |
