Meta Model ‘Generalisations’: Universal Quantifiers

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

We’re on to a new set of language patterns in NLP’s Meta Model – Generalisations! The previous category of patterns, ‘Distortions’, are covered in previous articles starting here.

What Do We Mean By ‘Generalisations’?

As the name suggests, generalisations are either sweeping statements that say ‘all examples of this are the same’ or ‘this has never happened’, or else unquestioned rules about what should or shouldn’t happen, or what you can and can’t do. This reflects black-and-white thinking and inflexibility; a person who uses a lot of generalisations is not going to be very comfortable with uncertainty or ambiguity (most of the time anyway).

We all use generalisations as a set of general guidelines for finding our way around the world; if we had to think every decision out from first principles, it would take a very long time to get anything done. Most of the time they work OK for us; sometimes, these generalisations hold us back, or get in the way of seeing opportunities, or – as in the case of racial or gender stereotyping – cause problems for other people as well. So it’s useful to have some questions ready for when we need to challenge generalisations in our own internal dialogue, or we want to get other people to re-examine their own prejudices.

Universals (‘Universal Quantifiers’ in the NLP jargon)

Universals are what we would normally think of as generalisations in everyday English. “Everyone does it”, “It’s never going to happen”, “Things always go wrong for me”. The tip-off words include ‘all’, ‘nobody’, ‘everyone’, ‘always’, ‘never’.

Of course, we may also hear more positive generalisations such as “It’s all good”, but usually we don’t need to challenge these.

Interestingly, you can also get sweeping generalisations without any tip-off words being explicitly stated, like “Sales people are manipulative” or “Bosses grind you down.”

When people make universal generalisations like this, they’re not considering any possible counter-examples – either because they’ve heard the generalisation so many times that they just repeat it without thinking, or because they are in the grip of such a strong emotion that at that moment that they’ve forgotten about the counter-examples and the generalisation just feels true at that moment.

So we need a question that might get them to notice counter examples. One way you can do this is just to repeat the universal in a questioning tone – “Nobody? Ever?”

Or you could ask “Has there ever been a time when this wasn’t the case?”

A potential problem with these ‘standard’ questions is that they can seem confrontational, especially if used insensitively. At the very least, they will feel like a challenge to the belief expressed in the statement, which may make the person defensive.

What a therapist or coach is wanting to do with a ‘universal’ statement like “This always happens” is to get their client to compare the generalisation to their actual experience, and so to recognise that actually the generalisation is not universally true. Once some exceptions are found, it opens up a ‘possibility space’ where the client might be able to make the exceptions happen more often. This is less likely to happen if the client feels pushed into defending their limiting belief.

A better question would do the same job (of looking for exceptions) without provoking a defence. The question is more likely to do this if it starts from the client’s ‘map of the world’ and ‘paces’ (goes along with) the implied belief on the surface, while also getting them to look for exceptions to the generalisation.

So here’s a question that does just that. It came up in an NLP therapy discussion group on Facebook, and was contributed by a rising star of NLP, Duff McDuffee.

Duff said that when he gets a client who says something like “It’s always bad” or even just “Things are terrible” (which kind of implies a generalisation because it ignores any silver linings or moments when things might be better), he often uses the question “When is it worse?”

When is it worse? What a great question. Why? Because it ‘paces’ (goes along with) the client’s generally negative world-view so it doesn’t break rapport, and at the same time implies that there is some variation in how bad things are.

As with anything in human affairs, there’s going to be variation in a problem – sometimes it’s worse, sometimes it’s better, as this question tacitly reminds the client.

Of course, you don’t want to spend very long on the bad stuff, because the longer the client talks about how bad their life is, the more they’re going to associate into it and feel worse. So you’d spend just enough time on it for the client to recognise that there is some variability in their situation.

Note that if Duff had used a more traditionally solution-focused question, like “When is it better?” he would risk losing rapport with the client. It might be too much of an effort for the client to shift 180º from focusing on the negatives in the situation in the space of one question.

Instead, the question takes the client’s view of the situation smoothly from ‘100% terrible’ to something with more light and shade. From there, it’s an easy next step to start asking about the times when it’s not so bad.

Next in the Meta Model series, another type of generalisation: Modal Operators of Possibility and Necessity. You don’t have to check them out, but you can, and you probably should!

© 2024 – 2026, Andy Smith. All rights reserved.