Advanced Language

Pattern Mastery Flash

Cards Vol II:
Sleight of Mouth

Matt Caulfield

 2012 Matt Caulfield

This entire document is copyright to Matt Caulfield. The right to sell it as a
book or ebook is strictly reserved.

Acknowledgements
These cards would not exist without the hard work and insight of some of the
geniuses and forerunners of NLP. In particular Richard Bandler, whos
argumentative skills these patterns are based on, and Robert Dilts who
modelled and codified those patterns.
I must thank above everyone else Doug OBrien whos hard work in this area
has made the sleight of mouth patterns accessible and easy to understand,
learn and apply. If you wish to learn sleight of mouth, I highly recommend
Dougs books and audio programmes, which you can purchase at
www.ericksonian.org.

Introduction
I produced the original set of Advanced Language Pattern Cards for myself
and then for the attendees on my NLP Practitioner trainings. The plan was
always to expand this deck into a second volume to cover the Sleight of
Mouth Patterns, and finally here they are.
To use these cards, print them out onto card (or print them on paper and stick
them to card), I have included a handy card back for you to use on them if you
wish! If you really want to you could even laminate them...
The secret is to use them every day, even if it is just one card for 5 minutes. If
you do that you will be surprised how quickly you master these patterns.
The great thing with having them as a pdf, rather than a hard copy, is if you
lose a card or your set becomes a bit tatty, you can just print out a new one!
I hope enjoy them and find them useful,

Matt Caulfield

Sleight of Mouth: A History

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) peoples beliefs as if by
magic.

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 wasnt 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 the
lift 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. <<<

Polyas 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 arent.
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 random
guessing then it is more credible.

Tips for Learning These Advanced Patterns

1. Us the Meta Model questions to recover the full belief before you begin.
You can see the Meta Model patterns in the Advanced Language
Pattern Cards Vol. 1 (see www.mattcaulfield.co.uk).
2. You dont 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.
3. Set a goal, develop a plan and stick to it!
4. Start slowly (otherwise you may overwhelm yourself), just pick one
card a day to begin with and listen out for, and generate, that pattern.
5. Have FUN! Enjoying what you are doing will make you learn much
faster.
6. It must sound like naturally spoken, normal, language. If it sounds like
hypnotic mumbo jumbo, it will not be as effective.
7. Practice good tonality (for more information see Developing You
Dynamic Voice audio programme at www.mattcaulfield.co.uk).

Suggested Beginner Exercises

1. 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 dont care about me

Nuclear arms means strength, protection and safety

But generate (or listen out for) your own examples.

2. Draw one cards at and random and use it generate 3-5 challenges or
counter examples.
3. Draw one card at and random and use it generate 3-5 suggestions that
can reinforce the belief.
4. 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).
5. 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 way
it could be challenged.
For many more suggestions on how to practice language pattern drills
please see the NLP Exercise Manual at www.mattcaulfield.co.uk

CAUSE/EFFECT
will, will make, cause,
requires, etc (X => Y)
Positive thinking leads
to unrealistic
expectations

COMPLEX
EQUIVALENCE
Making two different
experiences have the
same meaning (X=Y)
He doesnt love me, he
doesnt buy me flowers

THE META
PATTERN:
Probability
The likelihood that
something will occur
again based on its past
performance.
The sun coming up.

META PATTERN

META PATTERN

Linguistic Structure of
Belief

Linguistic Structure of
Belief

Matt Caulfield

VERIFICATION
OF
CONSEQUENCE
If a particular belief
implies a particular
consequence and we
verify the consequence
than it makes the belief
more plausible.

POLYA
PATTERN
Matt Caulfield

Matt Caulfield

CONTINGENCY

Matt Caulfield

INFERENCE
FROM
ANALOGY

If a belief presupposes
some event or
phenomenon and we verify
this contingent event then
it makes the belief more
plausible.

A believe is more plausible

if an analogous conjecture
is proven true.

POLYA
PATTERN

POLYA
PATTERN

Matt Caulfield

DISPROVE THE
CONVERSE

COMPARISON
WITH RANDOM

The plausibility of a
belief increases as a
rival conjecture is
disproved.

If the belief can be

shown to be able to
predict results better
than random guessing
then it is more credible.

POLYA
PATTERN

POLYA
PATTERN

Matt Caulfield

POLYA
PATTERN

Matt Caulfield

This is where we draw

comparisons to things that
appear related, but arent.

Matt Caulfield

INTENT
What makes them make
this statement?
Concentrate on the
intention behind it.
Highlight the positive
function of the idea, or
challenge the negative
one.

SLEIGHT OF
MOUTH
Matt Caulfield

CONSEQUENCES

ANOTHER
OUTCOME

COUNTEREXAMPLE

Offer an alternative
outcome of the belief.

Use an exception
where their statement
would not be true
(useful if the structure
of the belief includes a
(Universal) Quantifier
as evidence to that
belief).

Look for the

consequence (even an
unintentional
consequence) which
can lead to the belief
being challenged.

Maybe you dont need

ABC, maybe you need
XYZ?

SLEIGHT OF
MOUTH

SLEIGHT OF
MOUTH

Matt Caulfield

Matt Caulfield

SLEIGHT OF
MOUTH
Matt Caulfield

APPLY TO SELF

REALITY
STRATEGY

MODEL OF THE
WORLD

Turn the comment

around onto them - by
saying (or implying) the
consequence they
suggest is applicable
for you, really is
applicable for them.

Delve behind the belief

to their perceptions
about the world.
Challenge the
perceptions the belief is
based on.

Demonstrate that the

belief is only true in their
understanding or model
of the world. Give
alternative models as
counter examples.

SLEIGHT OF
MOUTH

SLEIGHT OF
MOUTH

SLEIGHT OF
MOUTH

Matt Caulfield

META FRAME
Challenge the basis
behind the belief, rather
than the belief.
This can be a rather
aggressive attack. It is
an all out strategy,
dont use it lightly!

SLEIGHT OF
MOUTH
Matt Caulfield

Matt Caulfield

Matt Caulfield

CHANGE
FRAME SIZE

HIERARCHY OF
CRITERIA

Extend the implications

from the belief to some
bigger (or perhaps a
more compact) scale in
order to a bigger (or
shorter) time period.

Challenge the idea

according to more
essential criteria,
recommending
something more
important they must be
thinking about.

SLEIGHT OF
MOUTH
Matt Caulfield

SLEIGHT OF
MOUTH
Matt Caulfield

CHUNK DOWN

CHUNK (BLOW)
UP

METAPHOR OR
ANALOGY

Much like a lose thread

can unravel a knitted
jumper. Chunking down
to a specific part of the
belief and pulling that
apart can unravel the
whole belief.

Exaggerate the belief to

an absurd level in order
to challenge it. Taking it
out of the context it is in.

Using an example, story

or demonstration to
challenge the belief.

SLEIGHT OF
MOUTH

SLEIGHT OF
MOUTH

Matt Caulfield

REDEFINE
Redefine the meaning
of the words used in the
structure of the belief.
You can redefine the
cause or effect or the
resulting meaning
(complex equivalence).

SLEIGHT OF
MOUTH
Matt Caulfield

Matt Caulfield

SLEIGHT OF
MOUTH
Matt Caulfield

TIMELINE

REDIRECT

Challenge the belief on

the basis of when and
how long it holds true.

Attack the belief by

questioning the
underlying beneficial
motives.

(ADDITIONAL)
SLEIGHT OF
MOUTH

(ADDITIONAL)
SLEIGHT OF
MOUTH

Matt Caulfield

Matt Caulfield

Card back to cut out and stick to

your cards!