Going Deeper - The Framing Tool Questions

Going Deeper: The Framing Tool Questions

The Framing Tool excels at helping you track the two key dynamics1 that humans
use to make sense out of their experiences. When you familiarize yourself with these
two dynamics you realize that thoughts, and then the descriptions of those thoughts,
don't just emerge out a purple cloud.

1
Time as it relates to causality, and the process of specification and abstraction.
Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

For the approved use of customers of Language Guru – Mastering The Meta Model.

In fact, our ways of thinking and describing are intimately tied to the fact that we
move through space and time, under the effect of gravity. Our physiological
structures are organized to be able to move and respond under those conditions
within our environment. Our sensory mechanisms evolved in order to better adapt
to changes in the environment. Eventually when our ancestors developed the ability
to make speech; that speech was about what our senses detected.

Sensory detection occurs by noticing differences between one thing and another. It
is this ability to detect differences and then to create a special sound code which
stands for those differences that we call speech. Our speech acts have their roots in
perception, and the foundation of perception is the detection of difference.

From early-‐life development, humans go through a sequence of language acquisition
that is remarkably similar around the world and seems to operate regardless of the
specific language being acquired.

As we acquire labels for things, we also slowly develop the ability to describe
relations between those things with increasing sophistication. We develop a sense
of an operator, doing something, to something/someone else. We recognise
collections of things. We acquire the ability to hold duration and periods of time
(these are abstractions) and begin to develop the ability to put things into a
chronological sequence. We develop the ability to make inferences about causality.
We then eventually recognize that other people have different thoughts than our
own; different wants and different needs and the theatre of human relationships
begins properly.

Over time, we try and put our experiences of the world into some sort of order – to
make some sort of coherent narrative out of the events and happenings on the
outside, and our internal experiences – the feelings and judgements and conclusions
we make about the world and our relationship to it.

Eventually we, more or less, develop relatively stable ways of thinking about certain
things – we judge certain things to be good or pleasant and other things to be
unpleasant or bad. All of these judgements and evaluations and beliefs are
conclusions that we have reached, and we use them in comparing our on-‐going
experience – the novel and fresh experiences of our life – to what we already "know"
and what we have already concluded.



Our past conclusions, and the expectations for the future which they entail, our
habits of finding some things worthwhile and other things valueless, the needs and
wants we presume to pursue, and the actions we take all become reference points
for making sense out our new experiences.

We call the greater set of comparison-‐based referents for making sense, a Frame of
Reference.

Each statement that is made carries with it a Frame of Reference, which makes
sense out of a particular statement, opinion, thought, issue or problem as being the
appropriate way for the person speaking to think about it, given the specifics of how
they are making comparisons – in other words, if you have 'these' expectations,
'those' experiences, are thinking about the times when 'X' happened, and are
currently seeking 'Y'; then Z is the appropriate thing to think or feel – even if from a
"totally objective and god-‐like perspective", what the person is saying seems to be
total non-‐sense.

People don't merely "make the best choices available to them, given their map and
model of the world" (as per the NLP Operational Presuppositions) but, when
someone says "My life is shit. Nothing ever works out. Everyone hates me and I'm a
total loser" – that statement is the correct thing to think and say, given a specific
Frame of Reference.

Change the Frame of Reference; the problem changes and goes away.

Through use and skill with Framing Tool; you develop the ability to know which
question to ask, and when, in order to create a shift in the Frame of Reference. You
know what else must be true and what cannot be true. You know what is missing
from someone's thinking and also what can or should be added. The Framing Tool
provides you with the means to understand how conditions came about, and how to
design interventions to create change. The Framing Tool helps to direct your use of
the Meta Model and the other language tools of NLP so that they create results. The
Framing Tool makes Sleight of Mouth patterns a breeze and, rather than "pulling
rabbit-‐language patterns out a hat"; the Framing Tool allows you to precisely create
the form of language to match the needs/remedy/antidote of not just the statement
someone has made, but also perfectly serving the moves towards the Desired State,



the transformational process of the T.OT.E. and the relationship needs in the
moment.

Your first task is to become comfortable with the two broad dynamics which work
to make up the Framing Tool. This will give you a context within which the Meta
Model patterns and their relations to each other will make sense. No more trying to
pound in the language patterns by rote memory. When you learn the individual
patterns; they will sit within a context making them much easier to learn.

Chronological, Causal Reasoning – the Horizontal Arm of the Framing Tool.

When you look at the horizontal arm of the Framing Tool below, you will see that is
divided into three parts.

The central part stands for the present moment as expressed through the
description(s) made by a speaker. More than one statement can be there, as our
ideas, thoughts and feelings often require elaboration to make ourselves
understood. That central box could be described as the issue, question (problem,
challenge, idea, goal, etc.) under consideration but what it represents are
conclusions that the speaker has reached, so far, given specific referents (the root
word "refer" gives you a big clue – "given what the speaker is using or referring to in
making their language choice"). Change how someone draws their comparisons and
references; you change what they can think and feel.

Wherever we go in the world, we carry with us the conclusions, habits, and
expectations which we have acquired and developed in the past. But more than that;
those habits of thinking, feeling and behaving set the foundation for our reactions to
new situations and environments. Emotions and habituated response do not just



magically descend out of a purple cloud. They must be "triggered" by specific
aspects of the situations we face.

At the greater level, "problems" don't just happen either. There are sequences of
specific events leading up to whatever is identified as "This Mess", "The Crisis", "The
Situation", etc. When you are listening to another person describe anything at all –
problem, goal, desire, anecdote or narrative – you are hearing the result of those
processes as influences ("filters") or triggers and the conclusions that have been
made about them. Through every statement and every following elaboration, there
are inferences you can draw about what must be true and what cannot be true; what
must have occurred and what could not have occurred; the classes or types of event
that happened and those that could not have happened; and even, at times, the
specific events or conclusions that must have occurred – and all from the
presuppositions in what someone else is saying, and what is missing from what they
are saying.

What this signifies is an opportunity to figure out a bit of "the bigger picture" that
someone is carrying with them and ask far more refined and much better questions
than you might have otherwise. The Key question for these past influences carried
forward is:

"What must be true if what they are saying is valid?"

As you develop skill in this calculation – which resources and experiences, both
personal and professional, that you draw on and learn to extrapolate from, and how
you sort through the types of problem which tend to come up given certain specific
precedents – the better your questioning will become. This is how you develop skill
to ask the so-‐called "killer questions" which penetrate the appearances of given
statements about a specific situation, going to unconsidered or ill-‐considered
aspects of what has occurred which, in having a light shone on them, cause the
Frame of Reference to shift utterly and permanently. This is a skill and it takes
practice but it is achievable.

But beyond the past, we also have to consider the future. For many people the
boundary or limit of their Frame of Reference goes to the hope, demand or
prediction that only certain effects will occur. Every choice has both future benefits
and future consequences, many of which are not seen. In dealing with people and



their unique, living responses to the world, and you have a nearly incalculable range
of possibilities.

As Gregory Bateson put it:

"When one billiard ball strikes another, there is an energy transfer such that the
motion of the second ball is energized by the impact of the first. In communicational
systems, on the other hand, the energy of the response is usually provided by the
respondent. If I kick a dog, his immediately sequential behavior is energized by his
metabolism, not by my kick. [...] the behavior of the dog may indeed be partly
conservative — he may travel along a Newtonian trajectory if kicked hard enough, but
this is mere physics. What is important is that he may exhibit responses which are
energized not by the kick but by his metabolism; he may turn and bite."
– Gregory Bateson, (1987) 'The Group Dynamics of Schizophrenia', Steps To An
Ecology of Mind, Jason Aronson Inc.

In other words, strike a billiard ball with a cue stick, and you can calculate with a fair
degree of accuracy where the ball will end up. Kick a dog, and you have no idea
where the dog will end up... or your foot, for that matter. That goes double for
humans.

If you change the scope, in terms of time, and the range of impacts a certain
behavior will have; almost every Frame of Reference will change.

Consider the consequences of staying on the present course, with the present
behaviors, and the "problem statement" unresolved... and you will get one
possibility.

Consider the consequences of changing the present course, modifying the present
behaviors, changing or resolving the "problem"... and you will get another
possibility.

Consider the broader impact that the issue, challenge or problem is creating and you
have... a vast range of possibilities.



The questions you must connect from the past precedents, through the present
"issue statement" into the future is:

"What will the most likely consequences (or benefits) be if the present situation
is unchanged?

"What will the most likely consequences (or benefits) be if the present situation
is changed in X manner?

"What else is the present situation likely influencing or effecting which is not
part of the "issue statement?"

Through skill with drawing valid inferences about causality and consequence; your
ability to ask the "spot-‐on" question goes up by orders of magnitude. At times, it
even appears psychic but it is not. You ability to create credible and persuasive
arguments which change minds also increases. You are beginning to think, outside
of what is presented as "reality".

Later in the next section of this course you will be given various assignments to get
you practicing using these questions and understanding the powerful role of causal
reasoning and casual language.


Specification and Abstraction – the Vertical Arm of the Framing Tool.
How we identify and connect ideas through

associations, for example, what we might choose as
a specific and concrete example of an idea, or how
we group and think about the experiences in our life,
or how we define what we believe to be necessary or
essential – any time we say or think “X is an
example of Y” or we arrange a number of examples
into an equivalent grouping or family – each of these
involves how we “chunk” and sort the data that we
call our experience.
This process of chunking has a number of aspects

but a key aspect with regards to how we use the NLP
language models and how we think about which
questions to ask, and what statements to make is the
spectrum of Specification – Abstraction. In other
words, “the what and how” of connecting the
concrete and sensory, to our conclusions,
generalizations and thinkings/feelings-about. This
also includes how we leave out information, data
and aspects of our experience, in order to form a
coherent view of whatever seems to be arising.
These processes become habituated and, thus,

patterned and they are crucial to how we choose
which questions to ask and how to map the
communications that others make. Just as
importantly, these patterns reveal how we hold our
view of the world together, how we sort what is
important to us from what is not, how we judge
whether we are on-course or off-course.

The ability to find the “edges” or “boundaries” of the rules under which someone’s
assertions about their life or how the world is; their asserted statements of what is
important and what is not; their expectations regarding ideals and much more, all live
under the spectrum of thinking and languaging relating to Specification and Abstraction.
This is how you find out how their rules function on classes of experience… but also how
to change them.
Rather than merely being right and attempting to pull someone else over to your right
way thinking, when you learn to use the processes of Specification and Abstraction, you
discover where else to look for resources, alternate pathways, choices not perceived,
meanings unexplored – it’s how you can find the room for change from within their map
or model of the world. You make change far more elegant and less potentially bloody this
way…
Top down contains bottom up, and bottom up infers top down
We can group aspects of our experience in many ways, depending on how we identify
what things are, what we compare them to, and how we choose to sort them
(Good/Bad/Neutral/Uncertain/etc., or any other schema you can imagine). The mental
groupings – the labels and descriptions we use and all of the “thinking about” is at a
higher level of abstraction than events in the world.
Furthermore, when we think about doing or creating something that doesn’t exist in the
world, that thinking is more abstract and less concrete than an object, say a table, which
already exists in the world.
Our understandings and the maps we make of the world are at a higher level of
abstraction than the world itself. But even though most often these subtler, non-concrete
aspects of a person’s existence are “hidden inside”; clues are given through language and
through non-verbal signs of what may be “behind” statements someone makes or the
thoughts they think.
For example, let’s use an example that everyone might have heard of, the notion held by
some New Agers that one can “manifest” your strong desires by thinking hard and long
concentrating only on the thing you want to “manifest”. Now, we don’t want to burst
anyone’s balloon or bring someone down; at the same time, those sorts of assertions carry
with them certain assumptions, which can be tracked from the statement.

Starting from most basic and ubiquitous presupposition – the presupposition of existence
– anytime someone labels an experience or part of experience, or asserts that something
happens; anytime someone uses a form to verb ‘to be’; a presupposition of existence
underpins the statement. It implies “There exists an… [object, experience, name for an
object or experience, etc.]. This is not terribly interesting as far as it goes. When the
statement is made about something that is not immediately verifiable to someone; it also
invokes a requirement for specifying where and how (the context) within which the
presumed objects or experience exists.
In other words, “stuff” in our Universe doesn’t just happen all by itself. Complex
processes create everything and, according to current scientific understanding nothing is
destroyed; only transformed. When you or someone else makes a statement, especially
one about your experience of reality; you also assert that there is a way or process for
what is being described to occur.
Every statement is made within an implied, asserted reality. Some of those “realities” are
shared. Some of them cannot be shared. Which set of “rules for asserting realities” you
choose to play by, determines how you will deal with any particular statement.
Your “model of the world” will include “in-bounds” and “out-of-bounds” rules. Some
statements will not be allowable under the rules you play by. Some people’s rules assert
that there is only one possible way to experience reality and everyone else who says that
they have another way is wrong, or evil, or idiotic.
But the war over whose interpretation of reality is superior to everyone else’s does not
concern us. What we are interested in are the games rules that must exist in order for your
or someone else’s statements (or thoughts) to be valid within the internal worldview they
relate to. In other words, the question is “If what someone says is true; how does the
world, and their relationship to it, have to be in order for the statement to be
valid?”. What we seek are the rules that make the statement function for the person
making the statement.
Now, let’s return to the notion that one can “manifest” your desires by thinking hard and
long concentrating only on the thing you want to “manifest”.
If this is so; then the Universe must be organized in such a way that the Universe
somehow (unstated) creates the multitude complex processes and manipulates
circumstances by which the things most strongly desired by people can manifest. The

notion carries with it the requirement that the Universe behaves in this way. Interesting. If
this were true; then there would be other things that would have to happen as well.
The person who makes the statement has within their “model of the world”; implied
statements of cosmology (not the stars and big objects in space, but how the whole
Universe must behave) that are “bigger” and more comprehensive than their own life and
experience (in this instance, the whole of space-time and everything in it.) That’s a big
map with a lot of missing detail, which must be so, if what they are saying is true.
Look at the diagram:
Cosmology
The way the Universe must behave
in order for a worldview (and
statements that are consistent within
that worldview) to be valid
Worldview containing
many “rules” including…
“You can ‘manifest’ your desires

merely by thinking about them
long and hard”

In the “desire creates reality” notion; the Universe creates circumstances based on how
strongly you want something, that’s quite a Universe don’t you think? What an
extraordinary place (for good or ill) that would be. Aside from your beliefs about the
statement; someone who holds this to be true and takes actions as if it were true, and
interprets what they experience in terms of that assertion, will demonstrate certain
predictable consequences as a result. On most occasions there will be a vast amount of
additional information about how “the rules” of the assertion operate, which then tell you
how to find counter-examples which force a revision in the statements and the thoughts
behind those statements.
Different Meta Model questions will generate different classes of result. Let’s use the
“Quantifier” – Universals (all/none; every/never”, etc.) to find out about exceptions to the
general rule, and finding counter examples, to test the rule.
For example, with “desire creates reality” as the worldview pointing to a cosmology,
there are so many questions – Does every desire become real?… some people use
expressions frequently like “I wish they would curl up and die”? or “I wish I was never
born”? or “If I were in charge things would be different around here”? – Do those
become real or only some desires? Do everyone’s desires become real or just for some
people? Do you always “get what you want” or are there other rules? Etc.
Cosmology
The Universe is organized to respond to
human congruent desiring, and… (?)
Does
Does the Every
Universe Desire
respond to Manifest?
everyone’s
desires? Worldview including…
“Desire Creates reality”

Do all of long and hard”
your
desires
manifest? Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.
It’s a relatively simple matter, in this case, to generate clarification questions which test
the rule behind the statement “You can manifest your desires merely by thinking about
them long and hard”, using Universals. The replies generate a new rule that is added
and… as a general rule… one could say that “All generalizations break down at some
level”, in including that one. The question is, where are you going to look to find the
exceptions which break the rule? Onwards…
“You can ‘manifest’ your desires merely by thinking about them long and hard”
If we change our intent (going from finding the abstractions “above” which must function
in order for what the person is saying to be true); we can move to Specification and ask
for examples which “fill in the blanks”, in order to find more about the elements or
components of statement.
Worldview including…
“Desire Creates reality”

long and hard”
How do Can you give me an What kind

you know example of a desire of desires
that this you manifested have you
is so? merely by thinking manifested
about it long and this way?
hard?

Each reply gives you new possibilities for finding the boundaries of the assertion,
statement, belief, etc.
There are many possibilities for using this practically in finding out what might be
“behind” or “within” a particular statement. With practice; you will discover that there
are inferences that you can draw that are quite common to many people and also some
that are absolutely unique.
Let’s start with some common ones:
Generally, when someone is pursuing a direction – whether that be a plan of action, a line
of questioning or thinking, or a communication; the specifics of what they say sits within
a purpose for the activity. That purpose may not be stated overtly or it may not even be
held uppermost in someone’s mind put the purpose is there. That purpose sits at a higher
level of abstraction than the statements and actions made in pursuit of it.
At it’s simplest level; even having a drink with a friend may have several purposes, not
explicitly stated. For example, some purposes might be:
• to enjoy their company

• to have someone to share experiences with
• to entertain one and other
• to have a ritual of completion to the day or a period of time
• etc.
They may not be stated but if they are held; they will influence how a person interprets
the events that occur in pursuit of the purposes.
A simple drink with a friend is one thing; when purposes are pursued which influence the
perception of survival; these purposes can have a profound effect on how one goes about
one’s activities.

Worldview
Purpose
Actions
This becomes relevant when someone has difficulties with their actions not fulfilling their
intended purposes. Through mere habituation; one can become “possibility blind”. The
greater the level of abstraction; the more possibilities there are for creating fulfillment of
that purpose. For example, there are more ways to eventually feel free… by having
money… than to pursue a job you hate but which pays you well. Many people mistake
money (a means) for the end that is desired (freedom, happiness, etc.). The purpose of
eventually being free can be pursued in many ways beyond money. Money is but one
means to that end. Far too many people go the way of career burnout before they discover
that. Just as many people pursue money above all else and then, usually in mid-life,
discovering that having got the money; they feel empty.
You see it isn’t an all-or-nothing scenario. Purposes can be fulfilled (usually) through a
variety of means.

Knowing what someone’s purpose behind a plan, course of action, statement, etc. can
open the doors to possibilities not seen before.
Like many other things in life; even the different purposes behind the actions we take will
often summarize into a kind of durable intent, which crosses several areas of life. Some
people become fixated on what they call “survival” (when what they mean is maintaining
their lifestyle in a specific way). This collection of purposes brought together and thought
about as “survival” will have consequences. Sometimes these “intentions” will be
revealed. At times; “the problem” isn’t so much what is happening, as how things are
interpreted with regards to the more abstract and internalized “Intention” and thus various
dramas play out.
Worldview
Intention(s)
Purpose
Actions

As you see, we can move up the levels of abstraction to cover more and more ground but
please note… the more we move away from the sensory level of embodied experience
into these more interiorized, interpreted, generalized mappings; the greater the likelihood
that vast amounts of deletion of contradictory information; part-for-whole
transformations; and a variety of other distortions have occurred.

The questions we use to map abstractions of Purposes and Intent are:

"What is the function of X behaviour?”

“What is the intention trying to be fulfilled?”

When you understand the function/purpose a given behaviour is seeking, you have many
ways of helping a person map out a different/better/new way of fulfilling it. Knowing the
intention gives you insight into motive behind the behaviour.
Let’s go up another possible “rung” of the ladder of abstractions to the aggregated

experiences that are judged one way or another – Values. Values is one of those
wonderful weasel words which people trot out to mean a variety of things but for us –
there are no such “things” as values. “They” don’t exist and never have. Values refers to
the act of valuing, creating criteria and weighting them and the process of sorting one
thing from another. As such, when we take those processes and turn them into a
noun/object that can only exist in the mind; we have the ability to hold or posit certain
categories that we have created and assert them as being more important or trivial; good
or bad; etc. but these “values” have no objective life outside of the mind asserting them.
One of the secrets of values is that there will usually be differences between what is
asserted overtly as a value; and then what is lived. This is a consequence of acting from
within a mind and simply not perceiving what one has learned to exclude (rather than
being the product of some latent evil or “character flaw”.
To identify the values(s) behind a given behaviour we ask:

“How is X behaviour important?”
The following diagram shows you the higher “levels” of abstraction, followed by a
review of the questions that we use for each level.

Worldview
Values
Intention(s)
Purpose
Actions

“Levels” of Abstraction Framing Tool Question

Universe “What can we understand/must be
true about the Universe in order for
the said statement to be true?”

Worldview (Map of the world) “What can we understand/must be
true about the speaker’s model of the
world?”

Values “How is X behaviour important?”

Intention “What is the intention trying to be
fulfilled?”

Purposes “What is the function/purpose of X
behaviour?”

Actions “What is the verb?” (The doing)
Each “level” includes as examples, incidences or demonstrations, the “levels” beneath.
We’ve explored the impact of the south axis of the Framing Tool which is concerned
with sensory detail, evidence and examples. Our question to map at the sensory “level”
is:
“What instances or examples can be drawn, created or found to support the

issue in question?”
As you will read in “Becoming More Skillful With The Framing Tool”, the south axis is
where we find instances that support the conclusion uttered by the speaker, and the
examples that help support their worldview.

While there are many other possibilities for mapping but specification to abstraction,
these are a sufficient set for beginning to train your mind to the inferences “behind” and
“within” any particular statement and thus, ask much better and more targeted questions.
The magic, as you will discover, is in the systematic use of the Framing Tool questions in
combination with the Meta Model. Combined you have the “Swiss Army Knife” of
linguistic tools to help you transform limitations, overcome problems and be able to help
yourself or others re-map a more enriched model of the world.


Going Deeper - The Framing Tool Questions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Going Deeper - The Framing Tool Questions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

How we identify and connect ideas through

This process of chunking has a number of aspects

These processes become habituated and, thus,

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

Look at the diagram:

“You can ‘manifest’ your desires

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

“You can ‘manifest’ your desires

“You can ‘manifest’ your desires

How do Can you give me an What kind

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

Let’s start with some common ones:

• to enjoy their company

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

Let’s go up another possible “rung” of the ladder of abstractions to the aggregated

To identify the values(s) behind a given behaviour we ask:

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

Each “level” includes as examples, incidences or demonstrations, the “levels” beneath.

“What instances or examples can be drawn, created or found to support the

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

Copyright NLPTimes.Com – All rights reserved in all media.

You might also like