Analytic Vision

Attention Direction

Posted by Ştefan Alexandrescu on 16/07/2011

There is a metaprogram in classic LAB Profile and in iWAM called “attention direction”. More comparison between LAB Profile and iWAM here [en, pdf].  Short presentation of the LAB Profile categories here [en, php]

The following description is from here [en, php]

“Attention direction

Whether a person can perceive and respond automatically to the body language and voice tone of other people

Self

Sorting by Self makes up 7% of the population. This filter experiences a gap between receiving a stimulus and responding to it. They have difficulty with rapport, they don’t notice other people’s body language and queues, instead, the content of what people say convinces them.

Because they have little or no facial expression or voice variation, they often find interpersonal communication difficult. This pattern is not suited for customer service, does well where technical expertise is required

Others

Sorting by Others makes up 93% of the population. They consciously and unconsciously receive responses from other people and are good at creating and maintaining rapport. Their body language is animated, and they respond to both content and nonverbal aspects”

I wonder what would be the connection between the attention direction filter and the literal/inferrential speaking/listening style. My theory would be the one described by the following graphic (Please excuse my poor drawing abilities).

Attention Direction structuring by Ştefan Alexandrescu

Attention Direction structuring by Ştefan Alexandrescu

Another way to describe the attention direction filter would be the rule structure elicited on lateral chunking: my/my would describe a person who can both perceive a metaphor and expects another to get it (3rd quarter) or not to make any sense for him/her and either for others (2nd quarter). My/Your would imply quarters 1 and 4.

I will give examples for each of it from well known TV series.

For example, a good inferential speaker and literal listener (1) would be a person who speaks well in metaphors, hints around, is non-verbally expressive, but does not perceive the non-verbal or subtle messages from the others. Such an example would be, from what I remember, “Al” from the “Quantum Leap” TV Series.

A good literal speaker and literal listener (2) cannot perceive or transmit metaphors, non-verbal messages or other forms of communication that does not clearly express its meaning. Such an example would be “Data” from “Star Trek: The Next Generation”.

A good inferential speaker and inferential listener (3) would be someone who can both perceive the message subtly and control the states of mind expressed and perceived is Sydney Bristow, the main character from “Alias”.

A good literal speaker and inferential listener (4) would not express much emotion outside and would not hint around, but would be able to pick up signs of what other use as a non-verbal indicator of their state. Such an example would be Chloe, from the seasons 3-6 of “24”.

Communication sort metaprogram elicited by iWAM resembles the self/others metaprogram from LAB Profile: affective communication/neutral communication. Identity Compass does not elicit this metaprogram, it does elicit a thinking preference which is not mentioned by L. Michael Hall and Bob Bodenhamer in “Figuring Out People” the 2nd edition from 2005 as a metaprogram.

The question is weather this thinking preference is suitable to be considered a metaprogram, considering that metaprograms (by my own definition, confirmed by my main LAB Profile Trainer) are fundamental indivisible blocks of personality, unconscious filtering mechanisms through which the human brain deletes, distorts and/or generalizes the informations, processing a map of each one’s perception over reality. They describe reactions (attitudes and behaviors) manifested verbally or non-verbally by individuals in certain extremely specific contexts. The great contribution of NLP to the study of personality, in my opinion, is contextualizing and refining the fine personality traits that, combined, form meta-types such as MBTI distinctions, VALS II distinctions, Satir Communication Stances, Disney Positions, etc..

Considering the arguments I have presented, I have a question for my readers:

  • Do you consider the LAB Profile Attention Direction/iWAM Communication Sort a metaprogram or a metatype resulted from the combination of the two other different metaprograms?

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Attention Direction”

  1. […] 12. Attention Direction […]

    Like

  2. Martin said

    Merely wanna admit that this is very useful , Thanks for taking your time to write this.

    Like

  3. […]  Attention Direction (16.07.2011) […]

    Like

  4. […] de Ştefan Alexandrescu, publicat iniţial pe Analytic Vision la 16 iulie 2011. Reprodus de aici. Copyright © Ştefan Alexandrescu 2011 pentru versiunea în limba engleză. Copyright © Ştefan […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: