I will explain to you now all Sleight of Mouth patterns. You can learn how to use persuasion in normal conversation. How to easily change (or at least influence) someone’s opinions and beliefs.
Sleight of Mouth is an integral part of the Linguistic Workout regular exercises and DSR Rejection Coaching training program.
Let’s unpack one conversation, and let’s talk about possible retorts.
First is the belief with which my hairdresser hit me.
Belief: You are egoistical.
Now, we need to know a Cause, Effect and Meaning.
Cause: Me not wanting a kid.
Effect: I don’t give a choice to my partner to enjoy a child (an assumption made by my hairdresser when we talked).
Meaning: It is egoistical (his another assumption).
To ensure that you work on the right CEM, it is good to paraphrase.
Paraphrase: Ok, so if I understood what you mean. The fact that I don’t want to have a kid is taking a choice away from my partner, and it is egotistical. Yes?
To see CEM more clearly, let’s put its core into the table.
|Me not wanting a kid||>||my partner has no choice||=||It is egoistical|
We have here two pairs.
Now you should choose which pair you will focus on.
You can have these situations based on a different category to which Effect belongs:
- Effect – it is possible to experience it with the senses. Rain makes things wet. Wetness is confirmable with the senses. It is hard to deny it. In such case, you should work on pair E=M.
- Effect – is an emotion. You can work on C>E or (C>E)=M.
- Effect – is an opinion. A belief. It is hard to measure it. It is very subjective.
Example: You don’t want to have a kid (C), and as a result, you are taking a choice away from your partner (E). It is very egoistical (M).
Working on E=M makes an impression that you agree with C>E in this situation. But if you dismantle C>E, E=M will not be valid anymore. Simply because you broke the foundation for this. You can ignore the M and concentrate on C>E in such a situation.
Choice: C>E in this example is our pair. Our X leads to Y.
You will hear opinions and see different behaviours and emotional reactions. Then, based on your accountancy level with the person, follow the hints:
- You know the person – their values and beliefs. So you can easily assume a lot with high probability.
- You know a person a little bit and can predict the values and opinions. But, to be sure, you will have to ask some questions to get the whole CEM.
- You don’t know the person. You will have to ask questions. Or assume one of the universal beliefs or values. But don’t expect much then.
The first six patterns are basic ones. Very simple. Often, you will not need to know the whole CEM to use at least some of them.
Second six – to use them, you will need a whole CEM. Probably you will have to ask some questions. When you have:
- Only C: How C is making you feel?
- Only C>E: How do you think. What C>E means?
- Only E: What makes you feel that? (to get C) What does it mean for you? (to get M)
- Only M: What is the cause of this? (to get C) And how does it make you feel? (to get E)
Third six – you will have to guess and make some assumptions. Almost always. Of course, knowing the whole CEM is useful.
Few words about the example.
This situation happened to me a few days ago – a real-life thing.
I was trying to explain the background of the situation to my hairdresser. Still, he was so agitated that he wasn’t listening, and he jumped very fast to conclusions and had to share his opinions about this. I felt rejected as a person and potential partner to other people in his eyes. It is not that I cared here. Yet, I felt rejected.
Well… The background is that I have a child from an earlier relationship. As a result, I have no pressure to have a child, or not to have a child. Both options are acceptable to me. Because of my age, I think I shouldn’t have another child, but on the other hand, I like children, and I think that my partner should have a child. As a result, I am ready to accept any decision my actual partner will make in the next few years. She describes this as a very comfortable situation for her because she has no pressure from my side. Either way, I will be happy with my life with her and her choice.
And now some hypothetical retorts. Hypothetical, because in reality:
- You will rarely have time and opportunity to say laud all retorts.
- Some of them you will know that they wouldn’t be good enough in this situation.
- Some of them seem rude or provocative, and usually, there is no point in agitating the other person. Sometimes it works, but usually, it turns people off and getting “yes” is even harder then.
- And some of them are simply the exercises with patterns, and they have nothing to do with my personal beliefs in that matter. It is just an exercise to improve my skills and inspire you. As a result, I wouldn’t use these retorts. I like to be coherent in my actions and words.
Without further ado, let’s have some fun and do some magic… But not a sleight of hand card tricks. More like…
Sleight of Mouth – the conversational patterns
|Description: Redefine the meaning of used words. |
Pattern: It is not X. It is X’.
Example: It is not the decision. It is only opinion. The decision will be made together.
|Description: Redefine the meaning of used words. |
Pattern: It is not Y. It is Y’.
Example: It is not that I give my partner no choice. She has it. You simply don’t notice this.
|Description: Give an example where another explanation X’ has the same meaning Y. |
Pattern: It is not X=Y. It is X’=Y.
Example: It is just a statement of my perception of things. If I couldn’t have a child, I would really take a choice away from my partner.
|Description: Keep the Cause/Evidence and give it another, more useful meaning.|
Pattern: It is not X=Y. It is X=Y’.
Example: Me not wanting a kid doesn’t mean that I am taking away a possibility to choose from my partner. By saying what I think laud, I am giving her the possibility to learn what I think and what I feel. What she will decide, she will decide on her own.
|Apply to Self X|
|Description: Apply the same situation to the speaker.|
Pattern: Oh, that was very X to say. Or: The only person who X would say something like this.
Example: Said a guy who is single now and constantly complains about women.
|Apply to Self Y|
|Description: Apply the same consequence or meaning to the speaker.|
Pattern: Oh, that was very Y to say. Or: The only person who Y would say something like this.
Example: Well, her forcing me to have a child when I don’t want to would be egoistical toward me.
|Description: What negative could happen if another person keeps thinking like this? |
Pattern: If you keep thinking X=Y, then Z will happen.
Example: With that way of thinking, I would always give away the power to choose in important cases to another person. And I would be forced to live with the lifelong consequences of someone else decisions. No thanks. This kind of thinking will make your life miserable.
|Description: This is the way to change the topic. |
Pattern: X=Y is not the issue. X’=Y’ is the issue.
Example: What you said is not about what I or my partner want. It is about your perception of this through your patriarchal attitude. You have assumed that my opinion automatically is our decision. I am not forcing anything. I am just stating my opinion.
|Description: Meta model. As questions to dig out more assumptions and beliefs of your interlocutor. |
Pattern: How do you know that X=Y? Which exactly X? Which exactly Y? How particularly/ exactly/ specifically…?
Example: How exactly my opinion about the case is taking away the power to choose from my partner? Please explain this to me.
|Exaggerate (Chunk Up)|
|Description: Simply exaggerate. |
Pattern: Diminish X and exaggerate Y.
Example: It sounds like every time I say laud, what I think is taking any choice away from my partner.
|Description: Find proofs of the opposite situation.|
Pattern: Have you ever X=-Y? Or maybe -X=Y?
Example: Haven’t you met the person who didn’t want to do something but still did it for a partner? It is called conformism, and it has to be to some extent in every relationship on both sides. Otherwise, the relationships would not work.
|Description: Confront the internal strategy of another person, which created the belief. |
Pattern: How do you know that X=Y is true? How do you picture this in your head? How would you know that X=Y is not true?
Example: According to this, my wanting to have a child would also take a choice away from my partner. So how exactly are you stating your opinions in your relationships? And how are you making together decisions?
|Description: What is the reason/ intention behind what the other person said? Or what was the intention behind my behaviour X? |
Pattern: What made them believe this X=Y? Make some assumptions.
Example: You are telling me this so that I will give my partner a choice and make her happy. And our relationship would last. She has this choice. Thank you.
|Hierarchy of Criteria|
|Description: Give a false choice. You can compare the value with value or behaviour with behaviour. Compering value with behaviour is a logical error. Leverage with value. |
Pattern: What is more important, X (behaviour) or V (value)?
Example: It is not about wanting and not wanting to have a child. It is about living the way that fulfils you. For some, it is to have a child. For some, it isn’t.
|Change Frame Size|
|Description: Look at the bigger picture. Don’t change the X=Y or the context. Enrich it. And by enriching it show it through a different perspective.|
Pattern: Move the camera away to see more in a frame. And how it changes the X and Y.
Example: Well… You are divorced. I am divorced. We both have already proved that relationships are not always for life. But having a child is a lifelong dedication. Till your last day, you will be a father. This decision is much more important. Especially here, you cannot make any mistakes.
|Model of the World|
|Description: Change the context. You can also build credibility. |
Pattern: In my family…, in the world of lawyers…, in the country…
Example: There are some places on this planet where people have the right to choose if they want to have a child. No matter of gender. It is not only a women’s choice.
|Description: Play God. Assume that you know the other person’s motivation and, with power, say this to their face. Assume something positive to not to push away another person. |
Pattern: You are only saying that… It is really about…
Example: It sounds like you think that it is a duty for every person to have a child. Like in some theocratic countries.
|Metaphor & Analogy|
|Description: The easiest is to tell a short story about someone. |
Pattern: I knew the person who…
Example: Opinion differences in relationships – it is like with colours. One opinion is blue. The other one is yellow. And when you mix them, you get green. So one person can be sad, that yellow is no more yellow. The other person can be sad, that blue is no more blue. But the truth is, it is the only way to create a new quality, new colour – green. So you have to mix them to get something new. Unachievable, if you always have only one colour. You need differences to create new quality.