Sleight of Mouth
Sleight of Mouth
Company: MindBending Academy
Size: 4 Suits, 24 Cards
Language: English
“Sleight of Mouth” is a system of language patterns for persuasion. The story goes that Robert Dilts devised the patterns by modelling the argument and persuasion skills of Richard Bandler. By breaking down the methods used by Bandler, Dilts came up with 14 patterns. The name "Sleight of Mouth" comes from the phrase "Sleight of Hand" which refers to a magician's skills in making things happen which appear impossible. Sleight of Mouth helps you change (or reinforce) people's beliefs as if “by magic”.
Sleight of Mouth: A History
“Sleight of Mouth” is a system of language patterns for persuasion. The storygoes that Robert Dilts devised the patterns by modeling the argument andpersuasion skills of Richard Bandler. By breaking down the methods used byBandler, Dilts came up with 14 patterns.
The name "Sleight of Mouth" comes from the phrase "Sleight of Hand" whichrefers to a magician's skills in making things happen which appear impossible. Sleight of Mouth helps you change (or reinforce) people's beliefs as if “bymagic”.
The Structure of Belief
Sleight of Mouth focuses on influence by challenging, changing, or reinforcing beliefs.
Sleight of looks at the two Meta Model Patterns of beliefs in more detail:
Cause-Effect: X causes Y, for example, “if I eat chicken (CAUSE), it will make me sick (EFFECT)”.
Complex Equivalence: X=Y or X is equivalent to Y (the meaning a word or statement has to you). For example:
“You're late again, which means you don't love me”. (Note that this is not just "I believe you don't love me", but rather there is something that leads to that outcome.)
“I am not going to do that, [because] I am not that kind of person!”
Polya Patterns and the Structure of Beliefs
George Polya was a mathematician (much the same as Alfred Korzybski, the developer of General Semantics) at Princeton who was curious about how people came to believe something if it wasn’t provable. He referred to this ability to believe in something as ‘plausibility’, he wanted to see how things became so plausible, that at some point it becomes ‘true’ for that person.
He described five patterns of plausibly (We have simplified the description to remove the complex mathematics. If you love maths feel free to dig out a copy the book these came from: “Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning Vol II”):
1. The Meta Pattern: Probability
The likelihood that something will occur again based on its past performance. The more something occurs the more we will tend to believe it will occur again (the sun coming up for example).
Also, if something which is not very probably occurs it tends to validate the case-effect belief which predicted it (pressing the button more often gets thelift to come quicker)
2. Verification of a Consequence
If a particular belief (B) implies a particular consequence and we verify the consequence (C) than it makes the belief more plausible.
>>> If B implies C and C is true then B is more credible. <<<
3. Contingency
If a belief (B) presupposes some event or phenomenon and we verify this contingent event (C) then it makes the belief more plausible.
>>> If B presupposes C and C is true then B is more credible. <<<
Polya’s example is about criminal defence or prosecution and is believed to have committed it, and that crime needs a contingent event and that event is proven to have happened it makes it more plausible that the person committed the crime.
Say someone is accused of holding up a store with a gun and the prosecution demonstrates the person has a gun, then the possibility that they held up the store seems more plausible.
4. Inference from Analogy
A belief (B) is more plausible if an analogous conjecture (A) is proven true.
>>> If B is analogous to A and A is true then B is more credible. <<<
This is where we draw comparisons to things that appear related, but aren’t.
If the analogy cannot be shown to be true but it can be shown to be credible then it still increases the plausibility of the analogous belief.
Animal testing is the classic analogy. In fact much of science is based on analogous testing...
5. Disprove the Converse
The plausibility of a belief increases is a rival conjecture is disproved.
This is the classic argumental process that the philosopher Nietzsche would use. He would rubbish the challenging conjecture and then provide his own. His own was often no more plausible, but because he has rubbished the alternative his appeared more plausible.
6. Comparison With Random
If the belief can be shown to be able to predict results better than randomguessing then it is more credible.
How to use
Tips for Learning These Advanced Patterns
You don’t need to learn the labels. They are the least important part of these cards. It is more important to be able to recognise, generate and know what to do with the patterns.
Set a goal, develop a plan and stick to it!
Start slowly (otherwise you may overwhelm yourself), just pick one card a day to begin with and listen out for, and generate, that pattern.
Have FUN! Enjoying what you are doing will make you learn much faster.
It must sound like naturally spoken, “normal”, language. If it sounds like hypnotic mumbo jumbo, it will not be as effective.
Practice good tonality.
Suggested Beginner Exercises
Write down a list of as many beliefs as you can think of, either in the Cause & Effect (this causes that) or Complex Equivalence (this means that). The classic examples are:
• “Cancer causes death”
• “Saying mean things, means you are a bad person”
• “You being late means you don’t care about me”
• “Nuclear arms means strength, protection and safety”
But generate (or listen out for) your own examples.
Draw one cards at and random and use it generate 3-5 challenges or counter examples.
Draw one card at and random and use it generate 3-5 suggestions that can reinforce the belief.
Draw three (or more) cards and generate a counter examples (or reinforcing suggestions) and form them into a coherent paragraph or statement (or story if you pick the “Metaphor/Analogy” card).
If you hear a belief pattern REMEMBER you do not need to challenge it, you can reinforce it too. However, it is good practice to think of a wayit could be challenged.