Download Understanding the Formation of Beliefs: A Model of Inference and Assumptions and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Voice in PDF only on Docsity!
ANZPA Journal 15 December 2006 page 69
Working with the Ladder of Inference
- A Psychodramatistâs Guide
Peter Howie
Peter is a psychodramatist, TEP and the Director of the Queensland Training Institute of Psychodrama. He works extensively with middle managers in the public service using Morenian methods. He is heavily engaged in a PhD on defining deep learning.
In this paper I set out a simple yet profound model that suggests our actions are determined via a causal loop of inference based on minimal or even absent data (Dick & Dalmau 2001, Argyris 1990, Vickers 1995, Senge et al 1994). It shows how we make snap judgments, responses and reactions. I have found this model enormously useful as a psychodrama practitioner, adult educator and trainer. Others have told me it has also proven extremely useful to them. This is a practitionerâs paper designed for practitioners. The academic investigation of this kind of mental model I leave for a later time.
This model describes a process that is woven into the warp and woof of psychodrama theory and practice. It makes sense of some aspects of warm-up, clarifies âgroup thinkâ, explains how arguments function, clarifies stereotyping and habits, illuminates otherâs and our own blind spots, is crucial to marketing and other forms of influence peddling, makes sense of stories and narratives, melds with role theory and aspects of tele, and assists in the germination of compassion and love when working with simple or intractable circumstances. Individuals who work with this model gain a fresh insight into how they contribute to stuck or ineffective relationships as well as enlightening ones.
Below I set out a scenario from my work, present
the model and show how it assists to create fresh perspectives. I then demonstrate how I use it in groups. Finally I make a strong case for how this model is another way of making sense of psychodrama. You can check out further stuff at the websites provided.
Jim and Stan
As part of my work in leadership development the following situation emerged: Jim, a manager at a health clinic, knows he needs to develop a new relationship with one of the clinic workers, Stan, for whom he has no professional respect whatsoever. In fact he thinks Stan is harmful. For some months Jim has noticed Stan acting inappropriately, perhaps negligently with clients. Stan hasnât being doing adequate follow up work with clients. Interactions between the two have not been friendly. Jimâs conclusion is that Stan is no good at his job. And he has good data to back up his conclusion. When asked to consider any other possibility Jim is clear that he has a large and cogent body of first hand data and can easily picture this in his mind.
This scenario should be familiar to you to some degree or another. Maybe the details are different but the relationship characteristics are recognisable. Before we return to the next step in this tableau I want to present the model that will assist us to understand how Jim has reached
page 70 ANZPA Journal 15 December 2006
his conclusion and belief about that dangerous and unprofessional wretch, Stan.
The Ladder of Inference
The ladder is based on how people as a group or individually justify their way of operating in the world, their beliefs about life, the reasons for their actions, values or principles.
So we start this journey up the ladder of inference by considering in a general sense the experiences of meetings we have with other people. We could start with any of our experiences but the people ones are the most impactful in our lives. Starting at the bottom of the ladder (see Diagram 1. below) there is an event that we are
Our beliefs are the truth. The truth is obvious. Our beliefs are based on real data. The data we select are the real data.
My beliefs are the truth. The truth is obvious. My beliefs are based on real data. The data I select is the real data.
As a group we say....
Individually I say.....
Diagram 1: The Ladder of Inference
a part of and that we observe. From there we step onto the first rung and from all the possible things we might observe in that event, we Select Data.
In any situation there is effectively an infinite amount of data you can tune into. However none of us do. What we do is select certain data to pay attention too and pay almost no attention to the rest of the data. This is how we stay sane in a world of such diverse and oft times overwhelming data. Why we choose that data and not this data is rarely considered by us. I would suggest that it depends on the role we are in and the world view that accompanies that role. 1 From that selected data we step up to the second rung and Add Meaning to the data.
We notice certain data. And then we create a meaning for that data. Maybe we do both at the same time. A meaning is simply the quality of something or the way it is done, most easily described with an adjective, such as âloudâ, âquickâ, âsadâ, âtallâ, âwrongâ, âjerkyâ, âstylishâ, âaggressiveâ, âarrogantâ, shyâ, âseductiveâ, âthoughtfulâ, âoddâ, âdrunkenâ, âlazyâ etc. Often this step up the Ladder of Inference is hard to notice. This is because it is so quick and so
I take actions based on those beliefs
I adopt
I draw
I make
I
I
select data
add meanings
assumptions
conclusions
beliefs
from what I observe
to that data
based on the meanings I added
from my assumtions
about the person and event
Our beliefs then influence what data we select next time.
Observable data and events
page 72 ANZPA Journal 15 December 2006
I asked what conclusions his beliefs were based on. He told me in a firm voice. I then asked what assumptions his conclusions were based on. Again he told me in a firm voice - after all he was right and could prove it. I then asked what meaning from what data his assumptions originated. He answered in a quizzical voice and squirmed a bit. Only by revisiting the original data could the initial inferences be understood. And they could well have been fine and dandy. We use this process in psychodrama all the time. Especially in original social atom repair where we often unearth the initial biases and warps that develop but make absolute sense at the time.
By investigating how he has come to this conclusion, Jim comes to realise that one brief thirty-second encounter in a staff meeting 6 months previously had led him to make a very big assumption about what Stan is like and what he is capable of. This had never been discussed between them, never been checked out in any form. Since that time Jim had only noticed things about Stan that supported his critical story. As a result of this exploration Jim develops a new warm-up to Stan, a more inquiring response to his behaviour. In fact Jim sees that Stanâs behaviour was more normal and in many ways mirrored his own. Their relationship shifts.
As leaders and of course in life, we want to create relationships that reduce the amount of baggage we create day to day and increase our love of life so we can live more easily. To do this we need to do the hard work of getting to know what we each mean and of entering each othersâ worlds. This is particularly important when we find ourselves in stuck or entrenched positions, in a standoff or in symmetrical roles trying to convince the other they are âwrongâ and we are ârightâ. These situations occur every day in every social system, in psychodramas, in groups, between group members and in life. It is so common that we need many ways of understanding this dynamic and of assisting ourselves and others to un-make conclusions they have made and retrieve and own their own
projections.
The Phone Call
Letâs look at a second example of the ladder in action. You can try this in any group, pretty much anywhere you like. It will resonate with folks. I have done this maybe 50 times with groups ranging from 12 to 120 and it is always entertaining. I even did this very successfully during a job interview as a demonstration of experiential learning. You can try any number of variations and it will still be fun.
Invite someone to stand in the centre and enact, in any way they care to, being on the phone. Andy volunteers (remember, as you get going, to look after Andy).
Andy holds his hand with thumb and index finger extended. He brings his hand to his ear. His lips are pursed. He moves his shoulders forward and up. He says in a raised voice, in a moderate tempo âHi there Ken, I wanted to talk to you about this report.â As he says this he moves his weight from one foot to the other.
Now the data is available to everyone in the room. The action took less than 10 seconds.
Ask the group âWhat did you notice about Andy on the phone?â Concretise each response on the stage (have the idea of a number of ladders radiating out from Andy). In this case there were five responses: Andyâs lips, voice, shoulder, pace and shifting weight are placed on stage. This is the data selected (see Table 1 below).
In turn, for each selected data, ask âWhat meaning do you make from this data?â As the group responds again concretise the meaning that is added. For example, from data on Andyâs lips, is added the meaning âpursed, tense lipsâ. You begin to build five different ladders of inference around a central event - the phone call.
Build on this by asking âWhat assumptions
ANZPA Journal 15 December 2006 page 73
do you make from this meaning?â Following the ladder arising from âpursed, tense lipsâ comes the assumption that âhe is tenseâ. This is also concretised. Polite responses will come first, then the more impolite and finally the downright mean and nasty ones. Great fun.
Again build on this by asking âWhat conclusion do you draw?â The reply is âHe is really worried about some problem they have created with their client.â From this emerges the belief âHe really cares about their clients and wants the best for them.â
The action that flows from this is to ânotice how much he caresâ and treat him as a caring client- centred person due respect and prestige.
The stage now has five radiating chains, each one a different ladder of inference, (see Table 1). As a result we have five people (at the head of each ladder) who from a short observation of behaviour, respectively believe Andy is: A caring client centred person An uncaring bully
The Ladder Interpretation 1 Interpretation 2 Interpretation 3 Interpretation 4 Interpretation 5
- Select data Lips Voice Shoulder Pace of language
Shifting weight
- Add meaning Pursed/tense lips
Loud voice Hunched stressed shoulders
Speedy talk Shifty movements
- Make assumption
He is tense He is bossy He has burdens He is in a hurry He is tricking someone
- Develop conclusions
He is really worried about some problem he has created with his client
He is pushy and can be a bully
He is out of his depth
He doesnât care about his client
He has done something disreputable
- Create/ support beliefs
He really cares about his clients and wants the best for them
He doesnât care about people and always wants his own way
His caring has meant he has bitten off more than he can chew
His client is simply a means to an end
He is untrustworthy and not to be relied upon
- Take action Notice how much he cares
Notice how uncaring he is
Try and assist them
Notice his callousness
Notice his âdodgyâ behaviour
Table 1: Five interpretations of a phone call
An overworked, over committed caring person A callous money hungry person A con artist
Now invite group members to act as five groups discussing together whether Andy would make a good addition to their work team. Have them chat as separate groups first, enlarging each respective position. Each group will find supporting data for their position - flimsy as it may be. In the large group discussion each one will legitimately dismiss the otherâs concerns because they had missed that data or else considered that data as irrelevant. Each one will begin to develop peculiar ideas about their team members because of how they see this person. If you have Andy walk through the room people will actually notice data and attribute meaning to the walk that supports their bogus view of him. This can be quite a moment for people. Andy remembers where this has happened to him in life or where he has done it to others.
Donât forget there is more data that we havenât
ANZPA Journal 15 December 2006 page 75
lives from many different perspectives and to generate spontaneity that can bring forward creativity.
Warm-up is often seen as a mysterious process. Much training goes on in Psychodrama Training Institute programs to have practitioners recognise and work with a protagonistâs warm- up. This model offers a partial framework for making sense of it. Iâll put it this way: when a person is in a particular role they will have a pre-disposition to a belief structure which leads them to see and notice certain things and hence to act in a particular manner. They will have a tendency to warm up in a particular manner. This is why we have mirroring, role reversal and other techniques to assist a person to raise their spontaneity enough to see their circumstances from many different roles and worldviews. In addition, the act of seeing circumstances from different roles also raises spontaneity and leads to creative responses.
Directors Taking the Ladder in Hand
As psychodrama directors we utilize a âladder of inference type processâ all the time. Our training has encouraged us to have a very fluid, nimble and instantaneous relationship with the process discussed here. As we watch, listen and work with a protagonist we are constantly creating pictures, stories and possible worlds that they inhabit; based on minimal data; able to be changed at the drop of a hat; looking to see what they pay attention to, how they select data and the inferences they make from it. We keep a well-greased ladder for our own creative uses. Mind you, we get it wrong; we get it badly wrong at times. âBut I can prove I am right because my ideas are based on real data and let me show just what that real data is!â We get supervision and our supervisor can help to unearth the subtle influences that sidelined us from accurate inferences from the data we had or the data we missed.
Conclusion
When things are complicated in a relationship, a group or a social setting or society then what
is going on? I suggest that usually it is two or more people, working from a different street map, involved in a different story or systems, speaking different languages trying to read different song sheets and come up with a workable harmony. To me the miracle is that we all do so well together, not that there are so many problems. The problems are a given, the harmony is remarkable.
Moreno exhorted us all to make the effort to reverse roles with others, enter fully into the otherâs world, their story of themselves and life, the system they are a part of, the language they use for understanding and the song sheet they are using. The ladder of inference is an attempt to systematize the steps whereby each of us goes about creating such unique worldviews for ourselves and in this way assists us to appreciate perspectives radically different from our own. â˘
References: Argyris C (1990), Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning , Allyn & Bacon, Boston. Dick B and Dalmau T (1999), Values in Action: Applying the Ideas of Argyris and SchĂśn, second edition , Interchange, Brisbane, Qld. Senge P, Kleiner A, Roberts C, Ross R (1994), The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, Strategies and Tools for Building A Learning Organization , Doubleday, New York. Vickers G (1965), Art of Judgment , Chapman & Hall, London. Websites of interest: <http://www.solonline.org/pra/tool/ladder. html> <http://www.solonline.org/pra/tool/ladder- ex.html>
Footnote 1 Peter and Dizâs Axiom - What we donât know we make up. Corollary A - We usually make up the worst. Corollary B - Sometimes we make up the best, but at the worst possible time.
