Ladder of Reasoning
Have you ever found yourself confused by how someone else interpreted something you said or did and made it mean something you never intended? Or perhaps you found yourself angry at someone's comment or behavior and concluded that they were "inevitably" being prejudiced against you for some reason? You were climbing the ladder of inference. The first person to talk about the ladder of inference was Chris Argyris in 1970, and it is a way to describe how you proceed from some data (a comment about you or something you observed happening) to a series of mental operations that lead to a result. It starts with selecting from the data, interpreting it from your perspective, explaining it to yourself, and then drawing a conclusion. It's dangerous; Because it's all happening very quickly in your mind and you may not realize that you are just selecting some data. No one else sees your thought processes or knows what stages you went through to reach your conclusion. All they see is the action you take as a result.
How does the ladder work?
In practice, your convictions tend to reinforce the data you have chosen and how you interpret it, which means that it becomes a cycle of positive performance evaluations. Here, “positive” does not necessarily mean “good.” Rather, it means that performance evaluations push the process successively instead of stopping it and thus confirm what You are basically convinced of it. Here's a simple example of how we move our thinking up the ladder: Jane arranges to meet with Mary for coffee at 10:30 a.m. Mary was late and did not explain why, in fact she did not seem to notice that she was late at all. Jane decided that Mary had not bothered enough to show up on time, and that Mary considered her own time much more important than Jane's. . Jane concluded that it was not worth bothering to arrange another meeting in the future because Mary clearly did not want to see her. When Mary suggested that they meet next week, Jane apologized for avoiding the meeting. At the end of this matter, all Mary sees is that Jane does not want to meet her again, and she may not have the slightest idea why. There may be a number of reasons that made Mary late, which have not been explained: perhaps the reason is an appointment with a doctor, or perhaps it is a As simple as her hour being late, she had no idea she was late, while at the same time Jane decided that this friendship wasn't worth the effort. Often you will not even be aware of the convictions and assumptions that underpin your choice of data and the conclusions you draw. Perhaps you go directly back to childhood, or to a casual comment, or even a comment you heard a lot about and it was only half understood to you.
Avoid climbing the ladder of reasoning
What can you do to avoid climbing the ladder of reasoning or to help others avoid it? Above all, you must accept that you will always give meaning and inference to what others say and do based on your past experiences, because that is what people do! Because if we do not use past experiences to help us interpret what is happening in the world, we will certainly get lost, and no one will be able to “learn from their experiences” at all. The issue then is to benefit from experiences, but in a way that does not make assumptions about the behavior of others, or in a way that allows us to verify these assumptions. When examining your thought processes, be especially careful of pieces of information that you take for granted. They are likely deeply rooted in your belief system, and it is worth pausing to examine them to make sure they are actually facts. At least some of the time you will find that others do not see them as “true.” Absolutely . When explaining your reasons and thinking mechanism, you can use key phrases: “If I heard that you liked this part but not this body, is that true?” », «It seems to me as if... . . », and «I think that such-and-such matter is logical, but do others agree with me? » Questions can also be asked to test the data. There are three main types of questions. You can ask for data in an open-ended manner, test your assumptions, or just mention the data you observed. In the example above, Jane could have said to Mary: “Is everything okay?” “Were you stuck in traffic this morning?” “Was 10:30 too early for you? “We had postponed it.” “Was it inappropriate to meet this morning? "You can always let me know when it's not appropriate and we can arrange another appointment." “Oh my God, you're so late.” Any of these questions could open up a conversation about why Mary was late or reveal the fact that she had no idea she was late. Conversely, when Jane says she doesn't want to meet next week, Mary might say to Jane: " Are you well ? “I was very calm this morning.” In any case, it is difficult to test your final assumptions directly without appearing stupid or rude, and asking for a specific answer. For example, it was difficult for Jane to ask Mary whether Mary was interested in meeting with them, because it is difficult to base her conviction on the answer. Since Mary is obligated to say that she is interested (to meet them) even if she is not interested as a matter of politeness; So it is important to think about how you will ask questions to test your data and assumptions. One final point: When testing data or assumptions you don't need to mention the ladder of conclusion at all. As Rick Ross said, using it is not about diagnosis, but about helping to make your thinking process and the thinking of others clearer, thus improving communication. If you both know the model, it can be secure. A useful language of communication, however, it will not help you at all to say: “Are you climbing the ladder of conclusion a little here?” » Which even the least sensitive people might find exasperating.
From Book 44 Amazing
