I have heard David Grove describe the word 'intelligence' as coming from the Latin 'inter' [between] and 'legere' [read] and therefore meaning 'to read between the lines', an interpreation I have always liked.
After a recent session where one of the words my client had used a lot was 'intelligent', I suggested he look it up along with some others as part of his tasking before the next session. Afterwards, I thought I would look it up myself too.
Finding it in a couple of places, I discovered that 'read' is one meaning for 'legere' and that other meanings are 'to choose from among' and 'to pick out'.
intelligence 1390, "faculty of understanding," from O.Fr. intelligence (12c.), from L. intelligentia "understanding," from intelligentem (nom. intelligens) "discerning," prp. of
intelligere "to understand, comprehend," from inter- "between" + legere "choose, pick out, read"
(see lecture). Meaning superior understanding, sagacity" is from c.1430. Sense of "information, news" first recorded c.1450, especially "secret information from spies" (1587). Intelligent is a 1509 back-formation; Intelligentsia "the intellectual class collectively" is 1907, from Rus. intelligyentsia, from Latin. Intelligence quotient first recorded 1922 (see I.Q.).
This made me think of the difference between reading between and reading into. Sometimes, in the gaps between what a client says, there seems to be unspoken information. What to do when we believe there may be something relevant and significant for the client there - and we want to stay as clean as possible?
The cleanest approach is to ask if they perceive anything to be there:"And is there a relationship between X and Y?"
"And is there anything between X and Y?"
"And what happens just after X and before Y?"
The next cleanest thing is to make logical inferences about what's in the gap based on the other information in the system."And since logic seems to suggest there is a relationship between X and Y, is there one and if so, of what kind?"
The dirtiest thing is to read something into the gap
Take this story:"I had stepped out of the hot tub and was standing in the doorway, drying myself. The next thing I knew, I was flat on my back on the ground, bleeding from a cut in my forehead."
Approach 1: "And what happens just after 'in the doorway' and just before 'flat on my back'?"
"And is there a relationship between 'standing' and 'flat on my back'?"
This allows the client to come to their own conclusion about what happened.
Approach 2:
Given that I know:
- hot tubs are known to reduce blood pressure
- standing up suddenly can cause blood pressure to dip in the brain
- low blood pressure in the brain can cause unconsciousness
- I have heard of other people fainting in similar circumstances,
I may with a reasonable degree of certainty infer from what they've said and from my other experiences that they probably fainted and say: "Is it possible that you fainted?"
"How do you think you came by the cut in your forehead?"
"Was there something nearby that you might have bumped your head on?"
By couching these inferences as questions (and being genuinely open to the possibility of being wrong), I encourage them to consider my inference and agree or disagree with it.
Approach 3:
One could jump to an instant evaluation of the situation and state firmly:"You must have fainted and hit your head as you fell"
or
"You must have been abducted by aliens who implanted a special mind-control capsule in your forehead and when you woke, they had just removed it and dumped you back where they found you".
or even
"There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq"
Working with clients in a clean process, it's worth remembering that respecting the client's stated words and metaphors and not changing them is only part of being clean. It's just as important to stay clean in the gaps too.
Like flossing, really.
Phil
PS By the way, I HAD fainted and I needed 2 stitches...
Intelligence and relationships
Reply With Quote
