Модель НЛП:: BAGEL
Модель BAGEL описывает основные признаки состояния:
ключи доступа (accessing cues);
движения глаз (eye movements’);
языковые паттерны ( language patterns ).
1. Поза (В)
Обычно люди, находясь в состоянии глубокой задумчивости, принимают закономерные, привычные позы. Эти позы могут
немало рассказать о репрезентативной системе, которую использует данный человек. Вот несколько типичных примеров:
A. Визуальная репрезентативная система: наклон назад, голова поднята вверх, плечи подняты или ссутулены, дыхание поверхностное.
Б. Аудиальная репрезентативная система: тело наклонено вперед, голова поднята вверх, плечи отведены назад, руки сложены.
B. Кинестетическая репрезентативная система: голова и плечи опущены, дыхание глубокое.
2. Ключи доступа (А)
В процессе размышления люди с помощью целого ряда способов, или ключей вызывают определенные типы репрезентаций. В число этих ключей входят частота дыхания, невербальные «ворчание и стоны», выражение лица, щелканье пальцами, почесывание головы и т. д. Некоторые из них носят индивидуальный характер и нуждаются в «калибровке» применительно к конкретному человеку. Однако многие из ключей ассоциируются с определенными сенсорными процессами:
A. Визуальная репрезентативная система: частое неглубокое дыхание, прищуривание глаз, высокий тон голоса, ускоренный темп речи.
Б. Аудиальная репрезентативная система: грудное дыхание, нахмуренные брови, меняющиеся тон голоса и темп речи,
B. Кинестетическая репрезентативная система: глубокое брюшное дыхание, низкий голос с придыханием, медленный темп речи,
3. Жесты ( G )
Нередко люди с помощью жестов или прикосновений указывают на тот орган чувств, который участвует в процессе мышления. Вот типичные примеры таких жестов:
А. Визуальная репрезентативная система: дотрагиваются до глаз или указывают на них.
Б. Аудиальная репрезентативная система: указывают на уши, жестикулируют в этой области; дотрагиваются до губ или челюсти.
В. Кинестетическая репрезентативная система: дотрагиваются до грудной клетки и области желудка; жестикулируют ниже уровня шеи.
4. Движения глаз (Е)
Автоматические, неосознанные движения глаз нередко сопровождают определенные мыслительные процессы, указывая на доступ к одной из репрезентативных систем. В НЛП эти ключи классифицированы следующим образом (рис. 7):
5. Языковые паттерны ( L )
Основным методом нейро-лингвистического анализа является поиск определенных лингвистических паттернов, таких как «предикаты», которые указывают на ту или иную неврологическую репрезентативную систему или субмодальность, а также на то, как эта система или качество используются в общей мыслительной программе. Предикаты представляют собой слова, — глаголы, наречия и прилагательные, — которые указывают на действия или качества, а не на предметы. Выбор этой категории языка обычно осуществляется на бессознательном уровне; таким образом, она отражает неосознаваемые структуры, лежащие в ее основе. Ниже приводится ряд распространенных предикатов, соответствующих определенным репрезентативным системам:
What The Bagel Man Saw
By Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt
The bagels had begun as a casual gesture: a boss treating his employees whenever they won a new research contract. Then he made it a habit. Every Friday, he would bring half a dozen bagels, a serrated knife, some cream cheese. When employees from neighboring floors heard about the bagels, they wanted some, too. Eventually he was bringing in 15 dozen bagels a week. He set out a cash basket to recoup his costs. His collection rate was about 95 percent; he attributed the underpayment to oversight.
In 1984, when his research institute fell under new management, he took a look at his career and grimaced. »I was sick of every aspect of the whole thing,» he says. »I was discouraged. I was tired of chasing contracts. So I said to management: ‘I’m getting out of this. I’m going to sell bagels.»’
His economist friends thought he had lost his mind. They made oblique remarks (and some not so oblique) about »a terrible waste of talent.» But his wife supported his decision. They had retired their mortgage; the last of their three children was finishing college. Driving around the office parks that encircle Washington, he solicited customers with a simple pitch: early in the morning, he would deliver some bagels and a cash basket to a company’s snack room; he would return before lunch to pick up the money and the leftovers. It was an honor-system commerce scheme, and it worked. Within a few years, he was delivering 700 dozen bagels a week to 140 companies and earning as much as he had ever made as a research analyst. He had thrown off the shackles of cubicle life and made himself happy.
As it happens, his accidental study provides a window onto a subject that has long stymied academics: white-collar crime. (Yes, shorting the bagel man is white-collar crime, writ however small.) Despite all the attention paid to companies like Enron, academics know very little about the practicalities of white-collar crime. The reason? There aren’t enough data.
A key fact of white-collar crime is that we hear about only the very slim fraction of people who are caught. Most embezzlers lead quiet and theoretically happy lives; employees who steal company property are rarely detected. With street crime, meanwhile, that is not the case. A mugging or a burglary or a murder is usually counted whether or not the criminal is caught. A street crime has a victim, who typically reports the crime to the police, which generates data, which in turn generate thousands of academic papers by criminologists, sociologists and economists. But white-collar crime presents no obvious victim. Whom, exactly, did the masters of Enron steal from? And how can you measure something if you don’t know to whom it happened, or with what frequency, or in what magnitude?
Paul F.’s bagel business was different. It did present a victim. The victim was Paul F.
It is 3:32 a.m., and Paul F. is barreling down a dark Maryland road when he jams on the brakes and swears. »I forgot my hearing aids,» he mutters. He throws the gearshift into reverse and proceeds to drive backward nearly as fast as he had been driving forward.
He is 72, and his business is still thriving. (Thus his request to mask his full name and his customers’ identities: he is wary of potential competitors poaching his clients.) His daughter, son-in-law and one other employee now make most of the deliveries. Today is a Friday, which is the only day Paul F. still drives. Semiretirement has left him more time to indulge his economist self and tally his data. He now knows, for instance, that in the past eight years he has delivered 1,375,103 bagels, of which 1,255,483 were eaten. (He has also delivered 648,341 doughnuts, of which 608,438 were eaten.)
In the real world, Paul F. learned to settle for less than 95 percent. Now he considers companies »honest» if the payment is 90 percent or more. »Averages between 80 percent and 90 percent are annoying but tolerable,» he says. »Below 80 percent, we really have to grit our teeth to continue.»
In recent years, he has seen two remarkable trends in overall payment rates. The first was a long, slow decline that began in 1992. »All my friends say: ‘Aha! Clinton!»’ Paul F. says. »Although I must say that most of my friends are conservative and inclined to see such things where others might not.» The second trend revealed in Paul F.’s data was even starker. Entering the summer of 2001, the overall payment rate had slipped to about 87 percent. Immediately after Sept. 11, the rate spiked a full 2 percent and hasn’t slipped much since. (If a 2 percent gain in payment doesn’t sound like much, think of it this way: the nonpayment rate fell from 13 percent to 11 percent, which amounts to a 15 percent decline in theft.) Because many of Paul F.’s customers are affiliated with national security, there may be a patriotic element to this 9/11 effect. Or it may represent a more general surge in empathy. Whatever the reason, Paul F. was grateful for the boost. He expends a great deal of energy hectoring his low-paying customers, often in the form of a typewritten note. »The cost of bagels has gone up dramatically since the beginning of the year,» reads one. »Unfortunately, the number of bagels and doughnuts that disappear without being paid for has also gone up. Don’t let that continue. I don’t imagine that you would teach your children to cheat, so why do it yourselves?»
As considerable as these oscillations may be, the fact is that a poorly paying office rarely turns into a well-paying office, or vice versa. This has led Paul F. to believe in a sobering sort of equilibrium: honest people are honest, and cheaters will cheat regardless of the circumstance. »One time when I was cleaning up leftovers,» he recalls, »a man came and took a doughnut while I was standing there, and started to walk away without putting any money in the box. I never challenge people about paying, but in that place, despite notes and appeals to management, the payment rate had been abysmal, and I was fed up. I said to the guy, ‘Are you going to pay for that?’ And he said, ‘Oh, I left my wallet in my car,’ and started to put the doughnut back. Now I knew, and he knew that I knew, that he hadn’t left his wallet in the car, but he was too cheap to pay 50 cents for a doughnut and too brazen to say, ‘Oh, I’m sorry, I just wasn’t thinking,’ which is what anyone with half a conscience would say.»
By 9 a.m., he has made all his deliveries. At 11, he will start picking up leftovers and the money boxes. Until then, it is time for his weekly Friday morning breakfast with a dozen of his old economist friends. They meet in the ground-floor cafeteria of the office building where one of them now works. They swap gossip, tax tips, Ziploc bags of pipe tobacco.
Amid all the talk of cheating, lying and scamming, Paul F. takes the floor to declare his faith in humankind. »You guys know the story about the Ring of Gyges, right?» he says.
A man named Gyges, he explains, came upon a cave and, inside it, a skeleton wearing a ring. When Gyges put on the ring, he found that it made him invisible. Now he was faced with a choice: would he use his invisibility for good or evil? The story comes from Plato’s »Republic.» It was told by a student named Glaucon, in challenge to a Socratic teaching about honesty and justice. »Socrates was arguing against the idea that people will be dishonest if given the chance,» Paul F. says. »His point was that people are good, even without enforcement.»
