Let’s go back to the basic premise of NLP, which we briefly discussed at the beginning of the course. Alfred Korzybski proposed a map–territory analogy to encourage daily exploration of verbal “maps” (words), noting that these maps do not accurately describe what is happening in the “territory” (empirical world): “A map is not the territory it represents.” He used a familiar relationship between maps and territories so that we would remember when the territory (reality) changes, we need to update the map (language).

More recently, a researcher named C. Anton proposed that we are better served with the premise, “there is no territory”, because the territory (reality) consists of many maps. He argued, “Once we recognize how all maps, as part of the territory, are the means by which one part selectively releases and appropriates another part at different levels of abstraction, we no longer need to postulate that “reality” lies somehow “behind” and/or “beyond” our experiences and/or language.”

Saying the same thing from a different perspective, Wendell Johnson wrote: “The particular peepholes that define [our] outlook on the world become too small for [us] to see its large and exciting horizons.”

When we “abstract,” we select small portions of reality to attend to and leave out the rest. In the abstraction process, our senses and locations, not to mention previous training and experiences, limit what we encounter of all that is going on in the world. Bois created the acronym “WIGO” from the phrase “what is going on,” using it to represent “all known levels of existence, from atomic elements to galactic spirals racing away from one another.” In NLP, we use abstraction in the process of churning up or down (or sideways).

A teacher writes, “A a,” on the blackboard and explains the similarities and differences between the cases of this letter. For example, the teacher demonstrates the difference in pronunciation between the two cases. Once taught, it is up to the student to become competent in recognizing the visual, auditory, and kinesthetic components of the letter.

As a side note, you become competent at recognizing the kinesthetic components by writing out the letter. That task is dependent on but distinct from the visual component. In the process of becoming competent, the student should see each case as a “chunk.” Capital A and lowercase A are not identical, but they are conceptually more related than not. Once that chunking occurs and competency has been achieved, the student is ready to move onto “B-b” and the rest of the alphabet. This example illustrates the commonality of chunking. With NLP, we are also exposed to the power of chunking as well.

Research has found that, at any given moment, people are only able to structure and order information in five to nine chunks at a time. There are twenty-six letters in the English alphabet and double the number of cases. How does a child get from “A a” to “Z z?” As chunks become represented, stored, and habituated within our minds, they are transferred from the front of someone’s consciousness to the back of his or her mind. The conscious mind is supposed to keep a person sane and focused by filtering out most of the bits of information bombarding the individual, after all. It leaves room for the mind to register, “Z z.”

At an even more fundamental level, chunks themselves designate levels, or sometimes even logical levels, that order how people internally represent the world around them. Higher levels are more abstract than lower levels. For example, consider chairs. You have wooden ones. You have plastic ones. You have one in houses and one in offices. Nevertheless, due to their common form, all chairs are chucked together, and they form one level in that hierarchy of understanding. However, are chairs a part of any other level? They certainly are. One of those levels could be pieces of furniture. Pieces of furniture include chairs, but they also include tables and nightstands. All chairs are pieces of furniture, but not all pieces of furniture are chairs.

A further level of abstraction could be objects constructed by humans. A chair must have been built by people. A skyscraper must also have been built by people. These objects seem disparate out of context, but in the context of constructed objects, they have a common thread. Constructed objects may in turn be grouped under a much more general heading, such as material objects.