# Becoming a Communication Expert with Cartesian Linguistics Part 2.

During any effective communication, a communication expert will seek to understand fully and multidimensionally what their communication partner is saying. When I use the term multidimensional, this simply means that there are many different directions by which to look at and evaluate subject matter. The concept of multidimensionality comes from the field of quantum linguistics which I define a bit more thoroughly in part 1 of this series and my post on Sleight of Mouth Patterns.

In referencing yesterday’s post, we talked about seeking out boundary conditions when communicating with someone so that we may better understand what their thought processes are made up of. As a **communication expert**, in fully understanding the subject matter boundary conditions of a person’s communication, you will come closer and closer to objectively understanding them and their communication.

In Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP), one of the most powerful questioning strategies that has arisen from their communication models that allows us to define these boundary conditions is the usage of Cartesian logic. Mathematical Cartesian Logic, as most already know has it’s roots in geometry. The beauty of this type of logic is that it allows us to see all of the “material” surrounding a thought. I know it seems a bit space aged, but stick with me…

Cartesian coordinates are represented by the following:

- A, B = Theorem (Quadrant I)
- -A, B = Converse (Quadrant II)
- -A, -B = Non mirror image reverse (Quadrant III)
- A, -B = Inverse (Quadrant IV)

So how the heck does this apply to linguistics and communication? Let look at it in a literal sense then we can apply it to a real world example… This is ESPECIALLY helpful as a decision making strategy.

Let’s use the term “Kevin Weber teaches”. Now from a Cartesian perspective, the literal boundary conditions for a communication are sought out by contemplating the 4 coordinates.

- The theorem is:

- A(Kevin Weber)
- B(teaches)
- The inverse is:

- A(Kevin Weber)
- –B(Not teaches [doesn’t teach])
- The converse is:

- –A(Not Kevin Weber[anyone other than Kevin])
- B(teaches)
- The non mirror image reverse is:

- –A(Not Kevin Weber[anyone other than Kevin])
- –B(Not teaches [doesn’t teach])

Whew! OK, and you thought you were done with this stuff in high school. We are going to get to a real world communication example where you can apply this today in a moment. But before we do that, please let me point out the beauty of this first. What you see above is an extremely thorough and eye open view of the subject of Kevin Weber teaching. By looking at each coordinate separately you can see/uncover so much viable, pertinent and directly linked information pertaining to your subject matter. In a decision making process, this is essential to prevent your blind spots… OK, now on to reality…

Let’s say you are in a situation where you are attempting to sell something… Or maybe you are trying to get your teenager to take out the garbage. The “client” as we will call them is really on the fence as to what they should do… Cognitive dissonance and/or Inertia are very difficult enemies in the decision making process and will generally (understatement of the year) push someone toward the path of least resistance. So let’s help them apply some logic to this… The follow questioning model is derived from the Cartesian Coordinates:

- The theorem is: “What will happen if you take out the trash?”

- A(I will)
- B(take out the trash)
- The inverse is: “What will happen if you DON’T take out the trash?”

- A (What will happen)
- –B(if I don’t take out the trash?)
- The converse is: “What WON’T happen if you take out the trash?”

- –A (What WON’T happen)
- B ( if you take out the trash?)
- The non mirror image reverse is: “What WON’T happen if you DON’T take out the trash?”

- –A (What WON’T happen)
- –B (if you DON’T take out the trash?)

So as you can see, when the “problem” or subject of the communication is assessed in this way, this leaves little room for cognitive dissonance to grab a hold of.

Let’s take a look at a situation where you are seeking out boundary conditions on a potential “problem”. Imagine that you are at a night club and you want to ask a woman out on a date. Although the conversation has been going fairly well, she seems (based on your sensory acuity) to be on the fence about whether she is interested in your or not. So where do you begin to sell you “attributes”? Which ones should you talk about? How should they be represented?

Well, if you don’t know the boundary conditions to her indecision about whether she is interested or not, how would you know what to talk about? So take a look at the Cartesian coordinates…

What we want to find out is what could make you interesting enough for her to say “yes” so let’s start there.

- The theorem is: “What WILL happen if you do go out with me?”

- A(Will you go out)
- B(with me?)
- The inverse is: “What WILL happen if you don’t go out with me?”

- A (What WILL happen)
- –B (if you don’t go out with me?)
- The converse is: “What WON’T happen if you do go out with me?”

- –A (What WON’T happen)
- B (if you do go out with me?)
- The non mirror image reverse is: “What WON’T happen if you don’t go out with me?”

- –A (What WON’T happen)
- –B (if you don’t go out with me?)

The answers to this type of questioning will give you incredibly valuable insight into what she may be afraid of, uninterested in or uncomfortable with. Now although Cartesian Questioning may not tackle the emotional aspect of a problem, it can be a powerful tool in your communication arsenal… The resulting information is a thorough and much more objective evaluation bringing you one step closer to being a communication expert.

To learn more about Quantum Linguistics, Cartesian Logic and other information that can help you refine your own effective communication, please explore the rest of my blog The *Communication Expert,*or if I am online, please feel free to connect with me via Skype.

I love this model, I work with people in addiction and when we apply the questioning model it completely scambles their strategies. Ultimately, I find there are two effects; 1. If the client is willing to find a solution to their problem, the solution appears like a sudden revelation. 2. If the client is resistant to change, the result is usually an aggressive response.

So, a lot of my time is spent dealing/rolling with resistance.

Hi Tony,

I agree, it is a great model for the willing participant As with any change model, the MOST important part is the convicted interest in making the change on the end of the recipient. If you are in a position of resistance it is probably not the best time to push forward with something like this. My advice there would be to further work on rapport AND delve deeper into what is at work at an implicit level.

Especially from an addiction standpoint, although someone is “willingly” working with you it is very possible (even likely) that this is their explicit (cognitive) mind imposing direct volitional control (which is inherently temporary) over implicit drives/urges (which have considerably more “staying” power). The result often is just plain cognitive dissonance and unearthing the roots of that dissonance NEEDS to happen first, then the actual change models can be used effectively. I think that you will agree that if this doesn’t take place, the addict’s brain is unbelievably well trained to rationalize and defeat any external change mechanisms

Again, I appreciate your comment and please feel free to contact me if there is anyway that I might be of assistance.

DP

I love your article. it is explained well with good examples. i am just a bit confused, isn’t it true that inverse is the same with converse? the difference lies with the negativity. one lies in the first part of the sentence while the second one lies in the latter part. the answer to these two questions is no different. it will be great if you can add answers to those questions and see the boundaries. Great article btw.

If only more people would read about this.

Super great writing. Honest!

http://www.davidjparnell.com‘s done it once more! Superb read.

Robbie,

Thanks so much for the question. The difference does indeed lie in where the negative (or absence) is placed. In an A – B type of statement, whether the opposite or absence of A as opposed to B (or vice versa) is present will make a world of difference. Take the example of “Jason is the boss.” If Jason is A and being the boss is B, I think you can see where negating one or the other will dramatically change the meaning of the statement.

David

I love it!

This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I enjoy seeing websites that understand the value of providing a prime resource for free. I truly loved reading your post. Thanks!

Hi,

I studied a lot of NLP stuff, but I dont know how these questions can help someone. Please, give an example.

I really love quantum linguistics. I like the fact you are trying to correlate the four questions (what will happen if….) with Cartesian Coordinates.

Yet I can’t see which logic you have used to get from “What will happen if you take out the trash” to the axis of “I will take out the trash….etc” You have taken one sentence and made up the axis by deleting the sentence to your ‘fancy’ “What will happen if you take out the trash” does not in any way mean “I will take out the trash” – so the premise is slanted right at the beginning. And that’s the theme all through the examples. Cartesian coordinates take a premix and then filters it to find the ‘truth’ of it. But if you dissect the theorem before you start working on the actual sentence, the truth has already been corrupted. The coordinated do need two things to begin with (I.E. cause and effect – the means this), yet when you decide ‘this means this’ before you start, the process does not work well from a training perspective. I think you need to keep the four questions and the coordinates separate. Let me know if I have missed something?

Hi Terry,

Thanks for the question/s. I’ll try to answer them below:

“Yet I can’t see which logic you have used to get from “What will happen if you take out the trash” to the axis of “I will take out the trash….etc””

This is because these sentences aren’t connect through a string of formal logic. This would require if/then’s, or either/or’s, for example, that connect two or more complete thoughts. The various coordinates are not (necessarily) connected in such a way.

“You have taken one sentence and made up the axis by deleting the sentence to your ‘fancy’ “What will happen if you take out the trash” does not in any way mean “I will take out the trash” – so the premise is slanted right at the beginning. And that’s the theme all through the examples.”

(i) No, I didn’t make up the axis, the coordinates make up the axis. I simply applied the terms of the coordinates to the initial theorem. (ii) Yes, “What will happen…” does not mean “I will take out the trash.” It is not supposed to–I’m not sure where you’ve arrived at the conclusion that it should. (iii) That the premise is slanted presupposes that it is an attempt at determining an objective truth, which it, along with any other Cartesian efforts (in the fields of NLP/Linguistics), are/is not.

“Cartesian coordinates take a premix and then filters it to find the ‘truth’ of it.”

No, they don’t. Cartesian coordinates simply take the participants through a number of different perspectives, as they relate to the initial premise/theorem, so as to jar or potentially shift any static, preconceived notions/understandings/beliefs/etc, by illuminating the information “attached” to the premise/theorem.

“But if you dissect the theorem before you start working on the actual sentence, the truth has already been corrupted. The coordinated do need two things to begin with (I.E. cause and effect – the means this), yet when you decide ‘this means this’ before you start, the process does not work well from a training perspective.”

This statement is confusing to me. If you dissect the theorem, you are simply left with an incomplete sentence–the separation of the subject from the predicate–and left with little more than words. So, in that sense, yes, you are correct, because an incomplete sentence really can’t convey a “truth.” However, from a training perspective, your perspective on the way that Cartesian logic should be used is flawed (in the NLP sense). Cartesian logic no more a tool for proving right/wrong, truth/lie, etc., than a bulldozer is for flying, or a rain shower is for drying off. Cartesian logic, in a therapeutic or conversational/persuasion sense, is, again, for the purpose of providing different perspectives on a subject and illuminating the criteria/beliefs/information/etc. that is/are attached to, and support, that subject. If you want to prove someone wrong, or find a “truth,” you’ll need to use formal systems of logic. Cartesian logic is not that tool, regardless of the term “logic” it its title.

“I think you need to keep the four questions and the coordinates separate.”

Agreed. They are.

I hope this helps you to better understand the nature and proper deployment of Cartesian logic. Thanks for the questions/comments.

DP