There is a positive intention motivating every behavior, and a context in which every behavior has value
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 the presupposition that causes the most controversy. If there is a positive intention motivating every behavior, what do you make of all the crime? How’s that positive?
The key to this presupposition is that the positive intention is for the person executing the behavior. The intention is positive in that sense that reality looks better with that certain behavior than without, or it looks better after a certain action than before.
Often you’ll find an addition to this presupposition: “…and once was someone’s best choice.” So given the choices someone had, they executed the choice that seemed the best at the time, and the positive intention to have a better reality (for that person!) was the motivation.
Why is it necessary for NLP to believe this?
Down to the core this is a very positive presupposition. It basically says that every behavior has a benefit for a person. If we can find that benefit, the positive intention, we have the information to find other ways that include that benefit and add some more (or take away some negative effects).
Instead of feeling bad about a behavior, it makes us appreciate what it has brought us. This presupposition enables us to be creative and find another, but better solution.
Can I find proof or personal experiences that support the presupposition?
If I really look into my own behavior, there’s always a benefit for me. That doesn’t mean I like my behavior… but there are benefits and stopping the behavior might take that away, and that works as a resistance to change it.
This presupposition is also ‘proven’ by the Munchausen Syndrome. This is a disorder where people fake illness to get attention or sympathy. However strange the behavior and however harmful it may be, there is a positive intention: attention or sympathy. And faking the illness gives more of it, than acting normal would. Now this is an extreme and Munchausen is a psychiatric disorder, but it kind of proves the point.
Can I find proof or personal experiences that undermine the presupposition?
Not really. It can really be hard to find the positive intention in behavior of some people, especially when they inflict damage and pain, or even worse unto others. But although something is hard to imagine, it doesn’t disprove the point.
In conclusion, how do I feel about this presupposition?
I like this one a lot. At times it’s hard to see where the positive intention is in behavior, my own or other people’s behavior. But knowing that it is done with a positive intention and has a benefit, makes me look with ‘different eyes’. I try to see the value, and when appropriate help to get the same and more in a different way that creates more value for all that are concerned.
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 }
Most of the time I find it easier to discover the good intentions in observing others, then when actions or requests are addressed directly at me.
You do have a point when it comes to committing crime, most of the time they want a better life for themselves or their loved ones. Failing all other options, they reside to crime. As far as my sympathy goes, I do feel there is a good intention, but not for everyone, only them self. As one of your previous articles mentions, it’s not only about you, but also the effect you have on others. They will see it someday, hopefully not to late.
This does somehow feel like it contradicts with http://blog.lodewijkvdb.com/2007/09/the-meaning-of-the-communication-is-the-response-you-get.html
If all intention is good, and the outcome is not good, then this does sound paradoxical.
I can’t really see the contradiction there Tom.
Let’s say I ask someone to write a review about my blog, it clearly is with a positive intention for me. If the person reponds by cursing and calling me names, the meaning of my question obviously triggered something in the other person. My intention was still positive, the outcome is unexpected and unwanted. So if I still want that person to write that review, I should try another communication… with the same positive intention. If it triggers another reponse, that’s the new meaning.
I feel both presuppositions still hold. This is a fictional example by the way