This is one of the many NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) presuppositions and one of the original 8 of Richard Bandler.
What does NLP mean with the presupposition?
This is a tough one. I have re-read this presupposition many times, and to be frank, it’s not an easy to understand statement. I’m cutting it in pieces to take a closer look.
The ability to change the process by which we experience reality
So there is a process by which we experience reality. Makes sense, this is acquiring and processing all the sensory information, consciously and unconsciously. The phrase ‘experience reality’ is a reflection upon another presupposition ‘The map is not the territory’. Our experience and reality are not the same.
is often more valuable than changing the content of our experience of reality
The tricky part is in the end of this sentence: ‘the content of our experience of reality’. There is a hidden assumption in this presupposition, that it is possible to change the content of our experience of reality. Can we do that? If we can’t, this presupposition won’t make any sense at all.
Changing the content of our experience of reality, this can be done in two ways I guess. Prevent and ‘forget’. First we can change reality by prevention. If for instance you always get nauseous riding a bus, stop taking the bus, and you won’t get nauseous anymore.
But we can also change our memory of reality. If the content of our experience is ‘nauseous’, we can do our best to change our memory to ‘uncomfortable’ or even ‘happy’. Some people are very good at reframing their memories. This is also changing the content of our experience of reality, but about the past.
Now that we understand what it is about, this presupposition states that changing the process is more valuable than changing the content. So this means that working on how we deal with reality is more valuable than avoiding reality or altering memories about reality.
Why is it necessary for NLP to believe this?
NLP works with both with changing the content of the experience of reality, as in reframing memories of past events. And also with changing the process of experiencing reality, this is the foundation of a lot of techniques in NLP.
Changing the process is more valuable than the content, because it will prevent new bad experiences (I’m assuming bad experiences for now) in the future. Changing the content is like ‘cleaning up the past’, but if the inflow of bad memories doesn’t stop it will keep on getting back as work (a lot of the classical therapy is based on this by the way).
Changing the content is valuable when it is part of the process. If we look at someone with arachnophobia (fear of spiders), the memory of a spider might be part of the process of experiencing current reality.
‘I saw a spider, and I remembered the time when I was bitten by this big mean evil hairy scary spidermonster, and I feel the anxious need to leave the room immediately.’
At that time, changing the content is part of changing the process. This is a presupposition with a lot of uses.
Can I find proof or personal experiences that support the presupposition?
For all three parts I have to say yes. People can change the content of their experience of reality (stop taking the bus, or alter their memory of the event), they have the ability to change the process (people have been cured from phobias).
And about changing the process is more valuable than changing the content I have an opinion. My opinion is that prevention is better than correction, but finding proof for that is hard I guess. This is more or less a belief.
Can I find proof or personal experiences that undermine the presupposition?
That would be a no. Of course there are instances where I wanted to change something that didn’t work out. But that only proves that I haven’t found the right method yet, not that it can’t be done.
In conclusion, how do I feel about this presupposition?
I agree with it. I do believe that prevention is better than correction, and I believe people have the ability to change the process of experiencing reality. But I have to say that for a study that focuses on the effect of communication as much as NLP, this presupposition is not very clearly formulated. The fact that English is not my mother tongue can be a factor, but I think it easily confuses people.
Time for you to talk
What do you think of this presupposition? Does it make sense to you? Do you have experiences or examples that might undermine this presupposition?
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
That statement agrees with everything I’ve read and experienced, at least as much as I can remember. I’m reading Flow
at the moment and it presents a lot of research which validates that statement. It gives many examples of people working in jobs most people in western society would hate, yet for these particular people the work is a source of immense enjoyment and satisfaction. And it all comes down to how they perceive the work.
Hi Mark,
I never read Flow
, but this makes me very curious. I read Creativity
by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (yes I copied that name 
), but that was quite I while back. Thanks for letting me know.