GOING DEEPER: Capturing Experience

Previous Essay      Next Essay

Patterning

Ultimately, the process of gathering information regarding an ability is intended to reveal the patterns of beliefs, thoughts, feelings and behaviors that combine to make that ability possible. This is done by comparing across examples to find where and how they are the same. Differences between examples may turn out to actually be the same once differences in description are resolved. And real differences may be worth noting as useful patterns for special circumstances, or as indications of the need to recheck the appropriateness of how the ability is being defined.

Amidst the hundreds of wonderfully distinctively British comedies in the 50s, 60s and 70s, there was one dynasty of farces, all of which starred much the same cast and all titled, "Carry On..." ("Carry On Nurse," "Carry On Sergeant," "Carry On Constable," and so on). In "Carry On Teacher" (1959), the school's beloved headmaster is being promoted to another school. The kids, however, are determined to keep him. When an inspector from the Ministry of Education shows up, the boys do their best to demonstrate what a failure the place really is, hoping to ruin the headmaster's promotion. The prideful and superior inspector decides he will "conduct a little experiment on logic." He asks someone in the class to give him any two-figure number. "27" offers a lad, and the inspector writes on the blackboard, "72." He favors the teacher with self-satisfied smirk, then asks for another number. This time the offer is "81!" The inspector writes "18" on the blackboard. Again, he flashes a condescending glance at the teacher, then ask for another number. A lad triumphantly shouts out, "33! Go on, then, muck about with that!"

What You Are Looking For

There you are, asking questions of your exemplar, and he obliges with responses. But experience is infinitely deep, subtle and complex. In order to find your way, you apply the filters of your distinctions to bring into the foreground of your awareness (and that of your exemplar, as well) those aspects of experience to which you want to attend. But just what is it that you are looking for as you sift through the layers of the exemplar's experience?

You are looking for patterns. Two (or more) things relating to one another in a reliable and predictable way constitutes a pattern. For instance, when you meet someone and hold out your hand in greeting, they will almost certainly respond by shaking your hand. Similarly, flowers blooming in spring, questions initiating searches for answers, exercise increasing stamina, and the level of street traffic rising dramatically at the end of the work day are all examples of patterns. A pattern about patterns is that violating them predictably causes great consternation and the need to explain how it is possible that the pattern did not hold in this instance. (Recall, for instance, a time when you met someone who ignored your outstretched hand.)

Patterns usually engender generalizations about the world. After enough examples of two things relating to one another in a predictable way, we create a rule or generalization. Hold your hand out to greet a two-year-old child and he will probably just look at it, perhaps wondering what you want to give him (in the child's world, what such a gesture has always meant). But then you take his hand in yours and shake it. After a few more such experiences, the child will probably recognize the pattern and create a new generalization: "When someone extends a hand to you, extend your own and shake theirs." Of course, the number of experiences one needs to have to recognize a pattern and, perhaps, form a generalization depends on the person, the circumstances, and so on. Also, it is important to note that recognizing patterns and forming generalizations need not be conscious. Nor do these processes need to be explicit, that is, expressed in language. Generalizations can be "understood" by the body-mind system, etched into the experiential templates that then get expressed through patterns of thinking and behavior. In fact, the majority of generalizations that organize our experiences and behaviors are not languaged, but nonetheless form the vast architecture of our experience. This does not mean, of course, that these generalizations - even the minutiae - cannot be languaged. Turning the spotlight of attention upon that which has previously been unconscious may well make it available to description.

Patterns are important precisely because they create the basis for making generalizations. Because of our generalizations we do not have to continually rediscover the pattern of relationships operating in our world. They reflect what we have learned about how the world works, about the patterns we have perceived, and can thereafter guide our responses. The generalization, in effect, perpetuates the pattern that originally gave it birth.

This reflective relationship between patterns and generalizations is what makes patterns so useful to us in modeling. As the expressions of generalizations, patterns can reveal the generalizationsÑthat is, the structureÑof the exemplar's experience. When we say "reveal," we do not necessarily mean in language, or even in any explicit form. The pattern can reveal the generalization to us directly in our experience in the sense that it directly affects our experience (even if we cannot describe it). For example, a seminar leader has a pattern of turning his whole body to, and focusing only on, the person who is asking him a question. We do not know why. That is, we do not know the generalization that pattern of behavior reflects. Even so, if we then manifest that same pattern of behavior when we lead groups it may well have the same effect on our experience and the interaction. (And of course, through time and experience, we might come to recognize what difference that way of focusing attention makes and, so, recognize the generalization from which we have been operating.)

SAMENESS

In the context of modeling, patterns are any aspects of the exemplar's beliefs, thoughts, feelings and behaviors that are consistent to the point of being predictable. These patterns reveal themselves through contrasting and comparing examples of the exemplar manifesting his ability. We are looking for what is the same in all of the examples in terms of beliefs, behaviors and so on. Whatever shows up as a consistent and predictable element in the exemplar's structure of experience, in every example, is one of his patterns.

How many examples do you need to be confident enough to consider something as a pattern? One example is obviously not enough. With just one example you have no way to know what is peculiar to the particular situation the example comes from, and what is characteristic of the ability regardless of the peculiarities of the situation. For instance, suppose we have an exemplar of the ability to forgive, and he describes an incident in which he forgave someone who cut him off in traffic. In this instance, "I recall having done the same myself once" and "I see the humor in the situation." There are no patterns revealed in this; there is only description. We need a second example. He describes a second example, in which he forgave a friend who had betrayed him. In this instance the exemplar sees no humor in the situation, but he does "recall having done the same myself once." Obviously, "finding humor in the situation" is not a pattern, and "recalling having done the same myself" may be a pattern. Having the same element of experience appear in both examples is certainly very suggestive of a pattern.

But it could also be a coincidence. And so at least a third example is needed to confirm whether or not it is in fact a pattern. In actual practice, we have found that the elicitation of the third example goes quite rapidly as it usually serves more of a confirmatory function than one of discovery. Of course, if the third example does not confirm the patterns apparent in the first two examples, the previous examples need to be reexamined, and perhaps additional examples may be needed to sort out just what the patterns are. In any case, we are searching for patterns by looking for sameness across examples.

DIFFERENCE

When the exemplar consistently uses the same description (or demonstrates the same behavior) across every example, the patterns are obvious. While you certainly will find obvious sameness across examples, you can also expect to find many differences as well. But are these all truly differences? Not necessarily. We must bear in mind that our observations of the exemplar are subject to our interpretations, and that the exemplar's descriptions of his experience are subject to both our interpretations and his language choices (which can have quite a range). This means that what at first appear to be differences between examples may, in fact, be merely differences in expression and interpretation.

You can be certain that there will be differences in how your exemplar describes each of his examples of manifesting his ability. What you cannot be certain of is that these different descriptions correspond to different experiences. The richness of language makes it possible to express the same ideas in endless ways. It is true that different words for the same "thing" will convey subtle differences. But those subtle differences may or may not be significant to the exemplar. For one person, being "delighted" and being "pleased" allude to much the same experience, while for someone else being "delighted" and being "pleased" are distinctly different experiences.

Separating actual from apparent differences in this case is often as simple as feeding back to the exemplar the two descriptions and asking, "Are these the same, or are they in fact different?" This gives the exemplar the opportunity to test out in his own experience the two descriptions to discover whether they connect him to the same or different aspects or shadings of his experience. (Indeed, you will probably see your exemplar flipping back and forth between them as he compares the experiences.) Almost always, the exemplar is able to resolve the discrepancy, by confirming either that they are different descriptions for the same experience, or that they are indeed different experiences and explain the discrepancy.

Omission

One kind of obvious difference occurs when an element of experience that is found in one example in not found in another. For instance, our exemplar of the ability to forgive talks about the humor he experienced when forgiving one person, but says nothing about finding humor when forgiving another person. The fact that humor was not mentioned in the second example does not mean it was not there. It may, instead, have simply been omitted. Perhaps the gravity of the second situation overshadowed the humor, but it was there nonetheless, though muted and brief. Or perhaps the exemplar feels a bit embarrassed to admit that he was finding humor in an obviously serious situation. There can be any number of reasons and factors that prevent a particular element from surfacing into awareness (or description) in a particular example.

Omissions can usually be separated from true differences by pointing out to the exemplar the fact that there is such a difference, and then asking if what is true in the one example is also true for the other example. (Remember that you are asking questions to give the exemplar something to respond to, rather than asking questions to convince the exemplar of something you already believe.) If that element is, in fact, a part of that particular example, having your exemplar put his attention on it will usually either make him aware of it, or confirm that, no, it was not operating in his experience in that example.

Useful Differences

Because we are searching for the patterns that make up the exemplar's experience, our attention is on plucking out what is the same across examples, and setting aside what is different. Differences, however, should not be completely ignored.

Every opportunity to manifest an ability will generate the need for ad hoc responses. The world is just that rich and complex. Though not patterns that run across all examples of the ability, these "situational" elements of experience may still be worth noting and adopting. This is especially the case if that "situation" is one that is likely to reoccur. For instance, our exemplar of architectural design might relate an example of when she had to go to her client's home and walk around in it before she was able to get anywhere in coming up with a design that "fit their temperament." Normally, this is not necessary, but it turns out that there are some clients who simply do not reveal enough of their temperament in the architect's office, and in those situations, she wanders around their home. Adding this situational response to our model of the architect can make it more robust, giving us an effective way to respond in those occasional situations where the usual approach is not sufficient. (In fact, the Experiential Array intentionally makes room for some of these "situational" patterns under the heading of "Secondary Operations." See Going Deeper: Strategies.)

Real Differences

Resolving discrepancies in description and filling in omissions are not going to account for all differences between examples, of course. Some of those differences will, in fact, be differences. As we have said above, some of those real differences will be artifacts of the particular situation and, so, irrelevant to the structure of the ability itself (though they may also be worth capturing). Another possibility is that the differences between examples are revealing the fact that you do not have the ability appropriately defined.

In defining the ability you want to model, you create the net that you and your exemplar cast upon the waters of his experience. The characteristics and dimensions of that net will greatly affect what the two of you dredge up. For instance, suppose you want to model the ability to "maintain rapport with others." Your exemplar obliges with three good examples, and in the first two of these you find many possible patterns. The third example, however, nets you some similarities with the first two, and a bunch of real differences as well. The sudden appearance of these differences alerts us to reconsider the contexts of the examples. We notice that the first two involved maintaining rapport with friends and coworkers, and the third with a group. We now need to consider whether what we are really interested in is "Maintaining rapport...

...in general" (in which case we can use all of the examples we already have)

...with individuals" (in which case we must set aside the group example and ask for additional examples involving individuals)

...with groups" (in which case we must set aside the two individual examples and ask for additional examples involving groups)

Finding real differences between examples, then, is an opportunity to make sure that you are gathering information from examples that are examples of what you want to model. Or, if not, to make sure that you appropriately re-focus both you and the exemplar by more accurately defining the ability.

BETWEEN EXEMPLARS

So far we have been considering the process of finding patterns within the set of examples offered by one exemplar. If you are after an idiosyncratic model, then, of course, that is as far as you need to go. If, however, you are after a generic model, you will need to also compare at least three exemplars, distilling from their individual experiences the patterns that they share.

The process of patterning across exemplars is much the same as that of patterning across examples. You are still searching for that which is the same, resolving if possible the differences (through recovering omitted information, or through working out discrepancies in description), retaining idiosyncratic patterns that seem particularly useful, and using differences between exemplars to check on the possible need to refine the definition of the ability.

When patterning across exemplars, however, all of these concerns become more marked, and more complicated to resolve. This is because each exemplar will have his or her own ways of describing the patterns of experience that they nonetheless share. The patterns we discover are not likely to be revealed by the exemplars expressing themselves using the exactly the same words and phrases (though this does happen on occasion).

There are a number of important subtleties to this process of distilling out the patterns across exemplars, and we will explore them in more detail in Going Deeper: Generic Models, after we have covered the elicitation of the elements of experience using the Experiential Array. The reason for putting off the discussion of cross-exemplar patterning is that, at this point in the modeling process, your focus is best placed upon thoroughly understanding the experiential world of the individual in front of you, your exemplar. Your allegiance is to that person's experience at this point in the modeling process. And when you move on to the next exemplar, your allegiance will then be to this person's experience. This is important to ensure, as much as possible, that you capture each exemplar's structure of experience, rather than shoe-horning all of the exemplars into the same shoe before you even know the true size of their feet. Once you have modeled all of your exemplars for an ability, then it is time to distill from them all their shared patterns.

* * *

Obviously, you are not going to try to match up all of the examples of an ability, word for discrepant word, and ask a thousand times, "And are these the same or different?" There is another way to identify patterns, and that is by comparing and testing in your own experience what your exemplar is describing. When you discover that two differently described elements gives you much the same experience, probably they are pointing to the same pattern. If they give you somewhat different experiences, then that is a discrepancy in description to ask your exemplar about. We call this essential process, "stepping in," and it is to that to which we turn in the next essay.

Previous Essay      Next Essay