The NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) Self-Concept Model and Steve Andreas'¹⁾ Scope and Category Theory are contributions to the field of NLP. These theories offer insights into how individuals perceive themselves and organize their experiences.

The NLP Self-Concept Model is a framework within NLP that focuses on how individuals construct and maintain their self-identity. It explores the interplay between beliefs, values, behaviors, and personal identity.

• Beliefs: Core convictions or assumptions about oneself and the world. These shape how individuals see themselves and their capabilities.
• Values: Deeply held principles that guide behavior and decision-making. They form the foundation of one's identity.
• Behaviors: Actions and reactions that are expressions of one's beliefs and values.
• Identity: The overarching self-concept that integrates beliefs, values, and behaviors into a coherent sense of self.

The Self-Concept Model is used in therapeutic settings to help individuals reshape their self-identity by modifying limiting beliefs and aligning their behaviors with their values. This model is instrumental in personal development and achieving congruence between one's internal self-image and external actions.

When he began modeling self-concept, he created list of criteria for a useful self-concept. A useful self-concept is:

• Resilient, durable, and lasting (there when you most need it).
• Accurate (a good predictor of your attitudes and behavior for both yourself and others).
• Self-correcting and responsive to feedback.
• Unconscious (as in peak performance).
• Connecting with others, rather than separating.
• Free of self-importance, arrogance, and all the other signs of egotism.

Steve Andreas developed the Scope and Category Theory to explain how people categorize their experiences and define the scope of their identities.

Scope refers to the range or extent of experiences and contexts that an individual includes in a particular category. In terms of self-concept, scope defines what situations and roles are encompassed within one's identity.

• Broad Scope: An individual with a broad scope might see their identity as encompassing many roles and contexts (e.g., “I am a parent, a professional, a friend, a community member”).
• Narrow Scope: Conversely, someone with a narrow scope may define their identity more restrictively (e.g., “I am a lawyer”).

Category, in Andreas' theory, pertains to how individuals group similar experiences and roles. Categories can be hierarchical, with some being more central to one's identity than others.

• Core Categories: Central aspects of one's identity that are fundamental to their self-concept (e.g., “I am compassionate”).
• Peripheral Categories: Less central, more context-dependent aspects (e.g., “I am good at sports”).

Andreas' theory highlights that the interplay between scope and category is crucial in shaping one's self-concept. A broader scope with well-integrated categories can lead to a more resilient and adaptable self-identity, while a narrow scope with rigid categories may result in a more fragile self-concept.

Jane is a professional who struggles with self-doubt and feels inadequate in her career. She often thinks, “I'm not good enough,” which limits her potential and affects her performance at work.

• Step 1: Desired Attribute

Jane identifies an attribute she wishes to internalize: being “competent.” Currently, she relies on external validation from colleagues and supervisors to feel competent. This dependence on external feedback often leads her to seek constant reassurance, which can be annoying to others. Jane tests this by asking herself, “Are you a competent person?” and notices a nonverbal response of hesitation and doubt.

• Step 2: Self-Concept

Jane thinks of a personality trait she already knows is true about herself: being “organized.” She feels confident in her organizational skills even when things get chaotic or when others might not acknowledge it. When she asks herself, “Are you an organized person?” she feels a strong, positive nonverbal affirmation.

• Step 3: Notice Submodalities

Jane examines how she represents the trait of being organized. She realizes she has a vivid mental image of her neatly arranged desk and a clear internal voice affirming her organizational skills. This representation is durable and long-lasting. She also acknowledges counter-examples, like occasional moments of clutter, but these do not shake her overall belief in her organizational abilities (Incorporating counter-examples is essential for a healthy self-concept. Without them, the self-concept may lack a comprehensive set of real-life experiences, potentially leading to unrealistic standards and perfectionism).

• Step 4: Map Across

Jane now takes the desired attribute of being competent and begins to represent it in the same way she does her trait of being organized. She recalls instances of successful project completions, positive feedback from colleagues, and moments where she felt competent. She builds a comprehensive mental database of these examples. Jane creates a “summary representation” of her competence, perhaps an image of her leading a successful meeting or the feeling of confidence after finishing a challenging task.

• Step 5: Future-Pace and Test

Jane visualizes a future scenario where she needs to demonstrate competence, such as a critical project presentation. She experiences this context with her new internal representation of competence. She asks herself, “Are you a competent person?” and observes her nonverbal response, which now mirrors the strong, positive affirmation she felt with her trait of being organized.

By following these stepsBuilding Self Concept andreasnlp.com, Jane transforms her self-concept from one of inadequacy to one of competence. She starts by identifying her desired attribute and recognizing her current dependence on external validation. By comparing this with a trait she already feels confident about, she learns how to internalize the desired attribute using similar representations. Through the process of mapping across and future-pacing, Jane internalizes the belief in her competence, leading to a more empowered and self-assured professional identity.

• Scope: Jane's scope initially includes only those contexts where she receives external validation. By expanding her scope, she includes more roles and contexts where she can feel competent independently.

• Category: Jane's initial category for competence relies heavily on external feedback. By redefining her category of competence to include internal validation and varied successful experiences, she strengthens her self-concept.

Steve Andreas' Scope and Category Theory is applied in coaching and therapy to help individuals expand the scope of their self-concept and reframe their categories. This can lead to greater flexibility, self-acceptance, and personal growth.

Damon Carts' Youtube Playlist on Self Concept

Steve Andreas NLP Master Practitioner: Self Concept
Steve Andreas NLP Master Practitioner Self Concept Youtube Playlist

The concepts of “category²⁾” and “scope³⁾” are essential in understanding human cognition and language. These ideas have been extensively explored by cognitive linguist George Lakoff and have significant implications in psychology and philosophy.

To make these concepts easier to grasp, let's start with some everyday examples:

• Category: Think about the category “fruit.” When you think of fruits, apples, oranges, and bananas might come to mind first. These are typical examples or prototypes of the category “fruit.” Other items like tomatoes or cucumbers, which are technically fruits, might not come to mind as quickly because they are less typical examples.

• Scope: Imagine you are told, “Put all the toys away.” The scope of “toys” here might include action figures, dolls, and building blocks. However, in a different context, such as cleaning up an outdoor play area, the scope of “toys” might also include sports equipment like balls and bats.

These everyday examples help us understand how we group things into categories and how the scope of these categories can change depending on the context.

Categorization can lead to “Schubladendenken,” a German term that translates to “drawer thinking” or “pigeonholing.” This phenomenon occurs when individuals rigidly classify people, ideas, or objects into pre-defined categories, leading to oversimplified and often stereotypical thinking. While categorization helps us make sense of the world quickly, it can also result in inflexible thinking patterns where we fail to see the nuances and complexities beyond the initial category. This can hinder open-mindedness and perpetuate biases, as individuals are constrained by their preconceived notions and fail to reassess or reclassify based on new information.

George Lakoff⁴⁾ is an American cognitive linguist and philosopher, best known for his thesis that people's lives are significantly influenced by the conceptual metaphors they use to explain complex phenomena. His work revolves around how humans categorize their experiences and how these categories influence thought and language.

In Lakoff's view, categories are not just simple groupings but are fundamental to how we make sense of the world. He argues that categories are central to cognition and are often formed based on prototypes rather than fixed criteria. This means that certain members of a category are more representative than others.

• Prototypes: According to Lakoff, categories are often organized around the most typical examples or “prototypes” of the category. For instance, when people think of the category “bird,” they are more likely to think of a robin than a penguin because a robin is a more typical bird.

• Embodiment: Lakoff suggests that our bodily experiences shape how we form categories. This concept, known as “embodied cognition,” implies that our physical interactions with the world influence our mental structures.

Scope, in Lakoff's framework, refers to the range or extent to which a concept or category can be applied. This is closely related to how meaning and understanding are contextualized in different situations.

• Metaphorical Scope: Lakoff's work on conceptual metaphors shows how abstract concepts are understood in terms of more concrete experiences. For example, the metaphor “time is money” extends the scope of financial transactions to how we perceive and value time.

• Contextual Scope: The meaning of categories can shift depending on the context. For example, the category “furniture” might include different items in a home setting versus an office setting.

From a philosophical standpoint, the concepts of category and scope have been discussed extensively, particularly in the realms of metaphysics and epistemology.

Philosophically, categories are often viewed as fundamental structures of thought and reality. They help in understanding how we classify objects and ideas.

• Aristotle's Categories: One of the earliest and most influential discussions on categories comes from Aristotle. He identified ten categories that encompass all possible kinds of things one can talk about: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, and passion.
  Aristotle's Categories - Youtube playlist

• Kant's Categories: Immanuel Kant proposed that categories are inherent features of the human mind that structure our experiences. He identified twelve categories, grouped under four headings: quantity, quality, relation, and modality.
  Kant's Categories - Youtube

In philosophy, scope is related to the limits of concepts and propositions.

• Logical Scope: In logic, the scope of a quantifier determines the extent of its application within a proposition. For example, in the statement “All humans are mortal,” the scope of “all” is limited to “humans.”

• Semantic Scope: The scope can also refer to the range of meanings a term can have in different contexts. Philosophers like Ludwig Wittgenstein have explored how the meaning of words can change depending on their context.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus,” endeavored to eliminate ambiguities in language by proposing a logical structure that mirrors the world. He believed that by creating a perfect logical language, every proposition would have a clear and unambiguous meaning, corresponding directly to facts. This ideal language would theoretically prevent misunderstandings and philosophical confusion. However, Wittgenstein later recognized the limitations of this approach. In his later work, “Philosophical Investigations,” he acknowledged that language is inherently flexible and context-dependent. The rigid logical structure he proposed in the Tractatus could not account for the varied and dynamic ways in which language is used in everyday life. Thus, Wittgenstein's attempt to remove ambiguities in language through a purely logical framework ultimately failed, as it overlooked the complexities and fluidity of natural language.

Wittgensteins hyopthesis regularly get utilized and referenced in the systemic context,e.g. by Steve de Chaser. A major contributor here is Varga von Kibed⁵⁾.

• Lakoff, George. “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind.” University of Chicago Press, 1987.
• Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. “Metaphors We Live By.” University of Chicago Press, 1980.
• Aristotle. “Categories.”
• Kant, Immanuel. “Critique of Pure Reason.”
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig. “Philosophical Investigations.”
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig. “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.”
• Andreas, Steve. “Transforming Yourself: Becoming Who You Want to Be.” Real People Press, 2002.
• Andreas, Steve. “Six Blind Elephants: Understanding Ourselves and Each Other.” Real People Press, 2006.
• Andreas, Steve. “Building Self-Concept.” NLP Training Videos, Andreas NLP.
• Andreas, Steve. “Transforming Yourself: Becoming Who You Want to Be.” Real People Press, 2002.
• Dilts, Robert. “Encyclopedia of Systemic Neuro-Linguistic Programming and NLP New Coding.” NLP University Press, 2011.
• Hall, L. Michael, and Bodenhamer, Bob G. “The User's Manual for the Brain: The Complete Manual for Neuro-Linguistic Programming Practitioner Certification.” Crown House Publishing, 2000.