sunlit_music | Sleight of mouth

The following text in italics is an interesting article I found from wikipedia, which is about Sleight of Mouth. I'll post more on the use of Sleight of Mouth in Psychiatric settings, and my thoughts on this later:

Sleight of Mouth is a system of language patterns for persuasion. The concept was devised by Robert Dilts who modelled the argument and persuasion skills of Richard Bandler (the co-founder of Neuro-linguistic programming). By breaking down the methods, Dilts came up with 14 original patterns.^[1] Others, such as Steve and Connirae Andreas, have added even more patterns beyond these original 14.^[2]

As with other facets of the NLP system, the intention behind formalising the study of influence is to allow people to understand the process, and to duplicate those skills through the direct application of one or more of the Sleight Of Mouth patterns.

The name "Sleight of Mouth" builds off the phrase "Sleight of Hand" which refers to a magician's skills in making things happen which appear impossible.Ultimately, Sleight of Mouth focuses on influence by challenging, and thus changing, beliefs.

A brief description of the key patterns appears below. However, most of the understanding will follow from working through examples, and seeing how these are applied.

Intent: Focus on the intention behind the statement. This can be done by highlighting their positive intent behind the belief, or by challenging the negative intent.
Consequences: Find a consequence (even an unintended consequence) which results in the belief being challenged.
Another Outcome: Maybe people who XYZ need ABC.
Counterexample: Use an exception where their statement would not be true - which causes the belief that underlies the statement to be questioned.
Apply to self: Turn the comment back to them - by saying (or implying) that the consequence they suggest applies to you, actually applies to them for making the original statement.
Reality strategy: Challenge the belief based on the fact that beliefs arise from certain perceptions. Ultimately, this is about asking how they know their belief is true, or what aspects of the belief are really the issue. (This is like the Metamodel.)
Model of the World: Argue that they are saying that as a metaphor for something else.
Meta frame: Challenge the basis behind the belief, rather than the belief. Suggest that their belief presupposes something.
Change Frame Size: Extend the implications of the belief to a larger (or a smaller) scale; or to a larger (or shorter) time frame.
Hierarchy of Criteria: Challenge the belief based on more important criteria, suggesting something more important they should be considering.
Chunk Down: Look at a specific element and challenge the belief.
Chunk Up: Generalise in order to challenge the belief.
Metaphor/Analogy: Use an example which challenges the belief.
Redefine: Use similar words to say the same thing, ensuring that the implication is changed.^[1]
Timeline: Challenge the belief on the basis of how long it holds true. A challenge may initiate: "That's true today, what about next year? Still true?" ^[3]
Redirect: Attack the belief by questioning the underlying beneficial motives. Query "Yes, and what positive value leads you to believe that?" ^[4]