Everybody has a set of beliefs and intentions, some conscious and some unconscious.
These come out when we speak, either overtly or covertly, intended or unintended.
Most people have ideas or beliefs that they don’t want “discovered” so they aren’t “questioned.”
This is why the set of meta-model language patterns can see so confrontational. By using the meta model to uncover those beliefs that people don’t want questions, it feels as if they are being attacked on a deep, personal level.
Often times, we associate who we are with what we’ve chosen to believe, so when those beliefs are questioned, it feels our very right to exist is being questioned.
This is why discussions of religion and politics are often very heated, and very personal.
However, there’s a flip side to this.
See, when people use these things called “linguistic presuppositions,” they’re generally unconscious, and they are a defense mechanism to protect our beliefs.
For example, let’s say you have a belief that the Easter Bunny is the savior of humanity. You aren’t sure why you believe this, and you don’t know if you could defend this logically. So whenever speaking of that belief, you’d cloak it in these presuppositions:
One of the reasons that the Easter Bunny is the savior is because it’s been true for so long.
The widely accepted fact of the Easter Bunny’s saviorhood is why some people just don’t “get it.”
Look, I’m not going to discuss ANY of the reasons WHY the Easter Bunny is our savior, because not only is it totally self evident, but that we’ve been over this time and time again, can’t we just move on, instead of getting stuck in the past?
So what’s the flip side?
Instead of using presuppositions to subconsciously defend the beliefs you don’t want questions, how about presupposing something good about the person you’re talking to?
If you do this covertly enough, they’ll feel really good whenever they’re talking to you, yet they won’t know why.
They’ll just think you are one of the most charismatic people they know.
Would you like that?