Considering Mismatcher Metaprogramming

Author: Marlena Hanlon July 27, 2014 1 Comment

In Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP), there is a theoretical framework called metaprograms. This concept asserts that people are wired along a few natural tendencies in how they perceive the world. Obviously, this is not a new or novel idea, but I am very curious about the particular “metaprogams” identified and leveraged by NLP in its therapeutic applications. Specifically, I am interested in the idea of people who perceive through mismatching.

Matching and Mismatching
Matching has a literal meaning, and refers to understanding information through sameness. A Matcher looks for ways in which A is like B, and therefore looks to build rapport through seeking and emphasizing similarity.

Mismatching, also fairly literal, refers to understanding information through difference. Mismatchers automatically scan information and focus on where A is not like B. I imagine that Mismatchers attempt to build rapport through exploring differences together.

There are also hybrid forms, where a person first notices either sameness, and then the difference, or first notices difference, and then sameness.

Mismatching Stigma
Matcher perception, like extroversion, is disproportionately favored and rewarded in the US and similar cultures. I assert this because of the ad hominem aspersions on Mismatchers. Mismatchers are routinely characterized as churlish contrarians and curmudgeons who delight in punching holes in your brilliant plan, and probably do so only as a way to deflect criticism. Articles about working with Mismatchers are frequently titled some variation of “How to Work with Impossible People,” and the strategy suggested is to engage in perverse reverse psychology which tricks these Mismatchers into being socially tolerable. How do you know who’s a Mismatcher at the office? The articles’ answer seems to be, “Just look for the jerk.” Only an exceptionally biased view would choose to portray a method of perceiving the world, which is arguably neurally wired, in such aggressively hostile terms. I find link after link of articles which paint Mismatchers in deeply negative terms, ascribing offensive motives to Mismatchers through the descriptive language used. However, I find very few articles which commit the same attack on Matchers – none I’ve read immediately describe Matchers as sheep, or even timid conformists, which would be the analogous (but actually less rough) treatment.

Mismatching Value
What I think is most interesting about the hostility directed toward Mismatchers in business is that it conveniently overlooks the clear connection between an ability to immediately perceive difference and iconoclastic thinking. Dr. Gregory Berns, the author of “Iconoclast: a Neuroscientist Reveals How to Think Differently,” used MRIs to determine if iconoclastic brain function actually differs from conventional brain function. He concludes that it does, and that the default ability to seize upon difference is special to a brain which takes fewer cognitive shortcuts. Berns also concludes that stronger ability to perceive difference is a necessary component for stronger innovative thinking. I understand this in terms of “matching” resulting in a strong social network by reinforcing tribal similarity. But “mismatching” results in strong innovation potential precisely because it doesn’t seek inclusion in tribal similarity. I’m simplifying greatly for clarity in a short treatment, but I have seen this relationship in my work in several fields across multiple countries, and I am convinced so far by case evidence. From my field observations, Matchers are heavily constrained and limited by unconscious heuristic bias. Cognitive heurism is efficient, but often specious: like physicist Shawn Jackson once said of the Copernican heliocentric model, it was functionally wholly sufficient, yet still wrong. Mismatcher thinking is needed to jolt us all out of the inertia created by the underlying assumptions in matching.

The Trouble with Matching Communication
I sometimes hear Mismatchers comment that Matchers gloss over everything, but mostly I hear Matchers talk about communication with Mismatchers. Even in the relatively even-handed article by Robbins on matching and mismatching, he still ultimately refers to Mismatchers as “churlish and doctrinaire.” In addition to being widely portrayed as destructive naysayers, I also hear Mismatchers commonly characterized as “exhausting.”

My attention is drawn to these portrayals. What is the possible link between perceiving Mismatchers as both hard to get along with and exhausting? My own tentative conclusion involves an understanding of how the mismatching brain works. With matching, a lot of efficiency is achieved by grouping like together – sometimes by forcing things into like categories, rightly or wrongly – in order to chunk up an overwhelming amount of discrete data. There is a strategy of glossing over actual data in favor of perceived analogous relationships. The matching mind is very good at compressing data. This quick assessment allows you to move on quickly, conserving mental and physical energy.

It’s quick, but it’s also dirty. It’s dirty because it ignores a lot of potential differences which, if factored in, might materially and substantially change the pattern deduced. So, like Copernicus’ model, yes, matching is mostly practical and functional, but often not optimal, and in some case, even wholly wrong. This is seen most commonly in medicine: if a doctor focuses on the fact that the last 5 patients all have similar symptoms of dizziness and headache, s/he might be tempted to write it off as a typical hay fever response, common this time of year. But by focusing on the different symptoms, another doctor sees a patient with high blood pressure, an ear infection, cardio dysfunction, vision problems and a food allergy.

The mismatching brain is good at not compressing data. It snags and latches onto differences, delving into further evaluation as an automatic response. Of course, the vast majority of Mismatchers are able to perceive sameness – it’s just not interesting. “Same” are the bits of data which can be discarded offhand, but the differences must be evaluated for relevance; as we know, not all differences are material, and so sorting the accurate impact of differences becomes critical. In the medical example above, you don’t want a doctor who glosses over important, distinguishing symptoms; on the other hand, you don’t want a doctor who is so caught up in the myriad different presentations that s/he misses a critical pattern. Sorting differences is the tenet of the exception which proves the rule in action. This is definitely not efficient, and it takes a considerable amount of mental energy in comparison to matching.

So, here we are. Steve the Matcher is confounded and tired of Bob bringing up exceptions which don’t seem relevant, and wonders if Bob is just a malcontent who keeps trying to show how clever he is, at Steve’s expense. Bob the Mismatcher is confused why Steve never mentions problems in his presentation: did Steve not see them, not sort them, or just doesn’t find them relevant? Bob has no idea, but he is hardwired to notice and compelled to resolve them.

My observation is that when Mismatchers verbalize their process to Matchers, Matchers find it exhausting for two reasons: one, because it literally requires a level of mental energy which is generally challenging. Mismatchers are not exhausted by their process, because their brains are literally wired differently. Their perception often occurs for them like Gestalt flashes of exceptions which pop out, rather than the linear, bit by bit analysis needed to communicate it to others.

But the second is entirely psychoemotional and therefore the piece which is (conceptually) most easily mutable. The real question here should be why people who notice exceptions and ask questions are cast as combative and anti-social, instead of just observant and inquisitive. Why does, “Why?” result in so many people reacting as though they’ve been personally attacked, instead of only asked a genuine, neutral question? Why isn’t the answer to, “Have you thought about this or that?” a simple yes or no, rather than an internal, “Why are you questioning my competency?” Part of the exhaustion experience, I think, comes from an internalized interpretation of being consistently confronted by Mismatchers; but that’s an entirely subjective choice of framing which results in unnecessary and contrived conflict. Going along to get along doesn’t demonstrate superior emotional intelligence.

It seems a Mismatcher’s point of view is that not only does s/he have to manage an enormous amount of cognitive energy demand, s/he also has to expend enormous energy managing how to ask “obvious” questions or make pure observations so that they don’t trigger someone’s internal story and ricochet like angry shrapnel. And then s/he still has to break down the “obvious” differences in such a way that are persuasive or get resolved. Talk about exhausting! Therefore, most Mismatchers must develop exceptional social intelligence if they are to mix with others at all, because they have to constantly navigate the psychoemotional mine field their every genuine question provokes. I would suggest that if Mismatchers are truly churlish, instead of just unfairly cast as such, it may be because the social hypervigilance required of them is unreasonable and unsustainable. As Berns points out, the biased demand that iconoclasts wrap their nonconforming insight in conforming social bows is likely why we see so few successful iconoclasts: the deck is stacked considerably against them.

Because we all claim to value innovation and “thinking outside the box,” I invite you to identify the Mismatchers in your world today: celebrate where they challenge assumptions by giving them a break from the fragile egos around them, and use those questions as an opportunity to see something new.