Perception, Reality, and the Unconscious Mind

James Wildman

Hi, and welcome back for episode two. In this episode, Amanda and I will be discussing the NLP communication model.

Amanda Whitmore

So, let’s dive straight in. The NLP communication model—it’s fascinating, isn’t it? The idea that we’re constantly bombarded with data, but process only a tiny fraction of it through our five senses?

James Wildman

Absolutely. I mean, Amanda, when you think about it, it’s astounding. Every second, we’re taking in about 2 million bits of information—but we can only consciously handle a tiny fraction of that, in fact only 134 bits. That’s like picking up a book and only being able to read the back cover.

Amanda Whitmore

That’s a brilliant way to put it, James! It’s no wonder our brains have to filter out so much. Deletion, distortion, generalization—those unconscious processes are doing some serious heavy lifting. What strikes me, though, is how subjective this makes reality.

James Wildman

Exactly. It’s sort of like standing on the Serengeti, right? You’re overwhelmed by this vast wilderness—sounds, sights, the wind—but your brain zeroes in on a few key details. Maybe the rustle of a nearby bush or the sight of a herd in the distance. All the while, it’s cutting out so much background noise, so to speak.

Amanda Whitmore

Right, and it’s not even just those sensory details. It’s how all that raw information gets filtered through our beliefs, values, and memories, shaping it into something far smaller and--

James Wildman

Manageable.

Amanda Whitmore

Exactly! Manageable. And that’s where things get really fun for me. Like, think of VAKOG—the whole visual, auditory, kinesthetic thing. Most people probably don’t realize how much these modalities dictate the way we perceive the world.

James Wildman

Oh, totally. And Amanda, there’s this idea that what’s ‘real’ for me might not be what’s ‘real’ for you. I remember being in the Sahara desert and watching locals describe events in vivid auditory terms—things they’d heard—but my mind was stuck on the colors and shapes I’d seen. Same event, but completely different... representations, I suppose.

Amanda Whitmore

That’s such a great example, James!

James Wildman

Amanda, think of how much we lose in that process. The sheer scale of the filtering?

Amanda Whitmore

And, you know, it also explains a lot about why people interpret, say, historical events so differently. We’re not experiencing the same ‘objective reality’—we’re each crafting our own internal representation based on what our brains let through. It’s like, well, a personalized version of reality, isn’t it?

James Wildman

Exactly. And these internal representations—they’re so subjective. We attach labels, create symbols, even use internal dialogue to describe what’s happening. What you’re left with is... not the event itself, but almost like an artist’s impression of it.

Amanda Whitmore

Which is why interpretation is such a tricky thing. Two people can walk away from the same experience—whether it’s a historic event or a family dinner—and come away with completely different stories, all because their internal ‘filters’ shape the data differently. That’s... kind of mind-blowing, don’t you think?

James Wildman

It is. And it also makes me wonder just how much richer life could feel if we were even slightly more conscious of this process.

Amanda Whitmore

James, when we think about how much of reality we filter down into our own subjective maps, it really brings to mind Alfred Korzybski’s famous line—the map is not the territory. It’s such a simple phrase, but it captures so beautifully how our personal representations are just approximations, doesn’t it?

James Wildman

It really does. I mean, this idea that our perception, the ‘map’—is just this incomplete version of the real thing, the territory. And it’s not just incomplete, it’s tailored. Filtered. I’ve seen it firsthand in the field.

Amanda Whitmore

Oh, I can only imagine. Do you have an example?

James Wildman

Sure, I came across this a couple of years ago but it explains filtering perfectly.

Amanda Whitmore

go for it!

James Wildman

Sarah sat across from her NLP coach, frustration evident in her tight shoulders and furrowed brow."I just don't understand why my team never listens to me," she sighed. "I've presented the same strategy three times, and it's like they completely ignore everything I say."Her coach smiled gently. "Sarah, have you heard about the NLP concept of filters? Our brains process millions of bits of information every second, but we can only consciously handle about 7 to 9 chunks at once. So our minds filter information based on what we believe is important.""But what does that have to do with my team?" Sarah asked."Let me share a quick story," the coach replied. "A few years ago, I worked with two executives who attended the same strategic planning meeting. The first one, Mark, left saying it was a complete waste of time because 'no concrete decisions were made.' The second, Elena, was energized because she 'gained so many new perspectives.' Same meeting, entirely different experiences.""What happened?" Sarah leaned forward, intrigued."Mark's primary filter was results-oriented. His brain literally filtered out discussions that didn't lead directly to decisions. Elena's filter was focused on possibilities, so she absorbed all the new ideas while filtering out the lack of immediate action. Neither experience was wrong—just filtered differently."Sarah sat back, a look of realization crossing her face. "So my team might actually be listening, but filtering what I say through their own lenses?""Exactly. You tend to communicate with detailed analysis and numbers—that's your filter of what's important. But I've noticed many on your team respond to stories and visual metaphors. They're not ignoring you—their filters are just tuned to different channels."

Amanda Whitmore

That’s fascinating. So the team were filtering the information differently to Sarah and were shaping their ‘maps’ based on a completely different set of filters.

James Wildman

Exactly. That’s the thing—our subjective mappings they direct everything. How we interpret... what we see, what we hear, and especially how we behave. It’s like tuning into a radio station—you only hear the frequency you’re tuned into.

Amanda Whitmore

And that subjective mapping isn’t just about the filters we’re aware of, is it? So much of it happens unconsciously. I mean, if you think about it, it explains why two people can sit through the same debate or argument and walk away thinking, “How on earth did they come to that conclusion?”

James Wildman

Exactly. They’re pulling from different ingredients—different values, beliefs, memories... all those unconscious processes shaping that internal representation. It’s fascinating how something so small can have such a massive impact on our behavior.

Amanda Whitmore

Totally. And what’s so powerful about this model—isn’t it the idea that if we can recognize these ingredients, we can tweak them? Change the output entirely?

James Wildman

Exactly. It’s like a recipe, right? If you’re not happy with the cake you’ve baked, you don’t just hope for a better one next time—you figure out what went into it, and you experiment. Mix up the ingredients.

Amanda Whitmore

That’s such a good analogy. And it’s really the core of this whole idea, isn’t it? Understanding that the way we perceive things isn’t fixed—it’s flexible. It’s something we can change if we’re willing to challenge our assumptions, maybe think a bit deeper about how we built these mental maps in the first place.

James Wildman

Right. And this ability to consciously alter those ingredients? It’s, well—it’s incredibly empowering. It’s almost like being able to rewrite your own story, isn’t it?

Amanda Whitmore

So, James, speaking of altering perception and mental maps—why is it that when we tell someone not to picture a pink elephant, the very first thing they do is picture exactly that?

James Wildman

Ah, good old pink elephants, Amanda. It’s because, well, the unconscious mind doesn’t process negatives. When you hear “don’t imagine a pink elephant,” you have to imagine it first to know what you’re not supposed to imagine. It’s a classic example of how our minds work in these really... counterintuitive ways.

Amanda Whitmore

Exactly! And when you think about what that means for communication—it’s huge. If someone says “don’t worry” or “don’t be late,” well, they’re practically planting the very idea they want to avoid in your mind.

James Wildman

Right, Amanda, it’s remarkable how our words create these internal dialogues that stick. It reminds me of those conversations people have with themselves, often without even realizing it. What they say to themselves, especially repeatedly, becomes, well, almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Amanda Whitmore

And this connects so neatly to what we touched on earlier—how subjective reality really is. I mean, think about it—what we believe to be ‘real’ isn’t reality itself, but our brain’s interpretation of it. Like that scene in *The Matrix* where everything we experience is just signals in the brain.

James Wildman

Oh, absolutely. That philosophical idea of, “What is real?” As the character Morpheus says in the movie the Matrix, What is real? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals. It’s such a powerful concept, isn’t it? Especially when you think about how everything we experience is molded by those filters we’ve talked about—beliefs, memories, sensory modalities like VAKOG. It really does make you question... well, everything.

Amanda Whitmore

And speaking of VAKOG, I love how practical it can be. If you take a step, you know, into someone else’s sensory world—whether it’s focusing on what they see, hear, or feel—you start understanding them in a whole new way. It’s like bridging this massive gap between completely different perspectives.

James Wildman

That’s so true. I think back to a safari I took in the Serengeti—there was this one time when I was walking with a local guide who pointed out a faint sound in the distance, miles away. I couldn’t hear it for the life of me, but he was so attuned to his auditory senses that it connected him to his environment in a way I couldn’t even imagine. It’s really humbling, realizing how much we miss by being locked into just one perspective.

Amanda Whitmore

Humbling, for sure. And it’s also kind of exciting, don’t you think? Knowing that with a bit of effort, we can train ourselves to tune into those other modalities. It’s like opening doors to new ways of experiencing the world.

James Wildman

Exactly, Amanda. And it’s such a simple adjustment, but the effect it has on empathy and connection? It’s profound. Whether it’s listening more closely, observing little details, or even just appreciating the texture of an experience—it’s all part of broadening our mental maps.

Amanda Whitmore

And it all ties back to the bigger picture, doesn’t it? That the way we perceive reality isn’t fixed. It’s this dynamic construct we can rewire if we’re willing to put in the effort. I mean, how empowering is that?

James Wildman

It really is. When you understand that your internal representation of the world can shift, suddenly, you’re not just a passenger—you’re the one steering the ship. And that changes everything.

Amanda Whitmore

Couldn’t agree more, James. And on that note, I think that’s the perfect place to wrap this up. To all our listeners, remember—the next time someone tells you not to think of a pink elephant, maybe just, you know... smile and think of it anyway. It’s been such a pleasure chatting today.

James Wildman

Absolutely, Amanda. Thanks for having me along. And to everyone out there, stay curious and keep exploring. We’ll see you next time!