The Truth About VAK (Visual, Auditory, Kinaesthetic)
If you’ve done some personal development, or you work as a coach, trainer or consultant, you’re probably well aware of VAK – the idea that a person may have a Visual, Auditory or Kinaesthetic preference.
I’m often asked about the relationship between VAK and a person’s metaphors, and in this blog I’ll explain.
To summarise ruthlessly, the “VAK” notion is that people have an internal model of the world which is made up of pictures, sounds and feelings, and that a particular person may have a marked preference for one of the three. This will spill out in the language they use: for example a person with a Visual preference would say “I see what you mean”, where a person with an Auditory preference would say “I hear what you’re saying”.
By matching a person’s Visual preference by using Visual words yourself, it is contended, you will enhance rapport and become more influential.
That’s the theory. So, how does it relate to David Grove’s Clean Language system, and it metaphor?
When using Clean Language to find out about someone’s model of the world, the facilitator aims to influence the client as little as possible, using special questions which are designed to be neutral in many ways. As it happens, the questions are also VAK-neutral: they don’t include questions like “What colour is it?” which are relevant only to the Visual mode.
Some do the questions do ask about what Aristotle called “common sensibles” – aspects of the world which can be perceived in many ways. For example: “Where is ….?” can be answered from a Visual, Auditory or Kinaesthetic perspective.
The ease of answer may vary depending on the modality – V, A or K – but will also vary depending on where the thing actually is. For example, it’s relatively hard to see things which are behind you, relatively easy to feel things which are inside your body.
My experience, having worked with hundreds of clients’ metaphoric landscapes using Clean Language, is that the VAK distinction is something of a red herring. Most people use a rich mixture of V, A, K and many other senses to construct their internal worlds. However, they all construct their worlds using metaphors: it’s the native language of the unconscious mind.
I recommend that to develop rapport and influence, match the person’s metaphors, rather than their VAK preference.
It’s more effective, easier, and more fun.
Not sure how? See my YouTube video on How to Spot a Metaphor
Comments from original on judyrees.co.uk
Carol
21 May 2011
Judy (in an email but C notes she can ‘hear’ (A) Judy’s voice that Judy uses in her videos)
‘here’s a quick question for you. Where do you stand on the popular “visual, auditory, kinaesthetic” distinction?’
Carol (written as answer in Judy’s blog and depending on how you know her you will ‘hear ‘her speaking quickly with a smile in the spaces, you may also ‘see’ her, her SL avatar or a photo of her, or indeed you may use another sense)
“A ruthless question first regarding the title, what happened to O and G?
Considering your question, in a moment, a flash, a quick answer, no!, a question instead came to mind, how exactly can one ‘stand on the popular V,A,K distinction’ as there is nothing in that space between. Or is there? Maybe normally invisible connectors or connections lay there? Have you noticed when those are perhaps absent for whatever reason the gap and possibly associated loss of a sense’ or two or three or more becomes visible? Could this information be useful to us in some way? For example when V was changed A altered too and K disappeared. And still wondering about O and G, did they roll off somewhere? And regarding the ‘truth’ in your heading do unconscious minds and red herrings exist anywhere except in thoughts? One can see, hear, feel, smell and taste a smoke screen as an ‘in the flesh event’, and reading about a wild goose chase again is something different, isn’t it, unreal in the world yet can make your heart race or give you goose bumps in the flesh. Just another word for red herring. Now my answer is becoming longer because sensing the senses of myself and others is so very fascinating and useful to me. Seems to me whatever the quantity or order or however dirtily or cleanly we use words and spaces often language cannot even begin to describe things experienced by the senses. So I ask yet another question, think of and also describe in words the look, feel, sound, scent and taste of the following ‘two-eyed steaks’, soused, Schmaltz, fresh, raw, salted, smoked, marinated, creamed, fried, fermented, pickled, cured, with lemon and red ones. And as I imagine seeing you, the reader, in my mind’s eye I imagine how your body and face will alter as you do this.
Robert
22 May 2011
I still find VAK very useful. I am in the arts, and I have noticed that many in the arts are strongly aural or visual but they use feelings to represent the pictures or sound. (As you say, ruthlessly summarized…) I my self do not easily remember “pictures”. My memories are not vivid or detailed unless I am uber familiar. My artist friends, on the other hand, seem to use feelings to lock in the things they see. They can remember details of things they have only seen once for a short time. When working with an artist, I can develop incredible connections and influence very quickly when I understand how the “K” relates to their perception of V and A. That is my take.
Judy
22 May 2011
Wow! What a feast of food for thought! Thanks everyone.
Peter
23 May 2011
Thank you, Pauline.
I was really impressed by your comment/answer, because it takes a great person to be that open…it also gives us the opportunity to learn very quickly. 🙂
I have been very wrong many times, and I hope I’m wise enough now to learn quickly 🙂
And I agree that Virginia Satir did a lot of great work, most of which I’m probably unaware of… 🙂
Thank you again, and have a wonderful week.
If we meet I can probably learn a lot from you 🙂
Peter
Peter
23 May 2011
Carol, I find your comment very interesting. It may be only me, but I feel that what you are writing is touching on the core…that the ‘VAK (OG)’ aren’t themselves interesting, but the synesthesia, that happens at the end of it, and is the very beginning of true rapport/connection/trance/emotional engagement…
Which always is connected to emotions/feelings, and where the logical neo-cortex has very little influence… 🙂
Just some random thoughts…
Please add, agree, disagree…
Peter
LCP
25 May 2011
VAKOG’s metaphor’s really mentafive,
But Judy’s m-protocol is mentasexy–real jive.
Comments from original on judyrees.co.uk
Chris Morris
19 May 2011
I agree that most people use a mixture of VAK, and I think the balance tends to shift in different moments and across different contexts. So I’m not interested in general preferences as much as patterns/themes. When am I representing the world more visually, or more kinaesthetically? I don’t think VAK is a red herring if you think about it that way.
Judy
19 May 2011
Fair point, well made, Chris.
And it can obviously be fairly tricky to keep track of a constantly fluid “VAK state”. I would guess that’s one of the reasons people make statements like, “I’m a visual person.”
Tracking metaphor seems to have fewer “moving parts”. Or is that just me?
Iain Menzies
19 May 2011
Metaphors are a fantastic way to communicate but feel the ” Red Herring ” label for VAK modality way off the mark. Your preference for metaphor is well documented but I feel you lose a little credibility by undermining a historically successful tool for building rapport.
Stephen Woolston
19 May 2011
Hi Judy,
I think matching the client’s metaphors (and analogies and similes) is really useful, as is matching their modal operator sequence, chunk size, etc.
I agree with Chris about preferences. Diagnosing Preferences are a simplification of the person.
Stephen Woolston
19 May 2011
Sorry … incomplete comment.
I was saying …
Diagnosing preferences is a simplification of the person. Tracking patterns is better.
But anyway, what I really wanted to add is this: My philosophy is to match whatever’s being demonstrated. Whether it’s a metaphor or a VAK pattern, if it can be tracked and matched, it’s of use.
That’s my 2c.
Cheers
Chris Morris
19 May 2011
Judy:
Fair point, well made, Chris.
And it can obviously be fairly tricky to keep track of a constantly fluid “VAK state”. I would guess that’s one of the reasons people make statements like, “I’m a visual person.”
Tracking metaphor seems to have fewer “moving parts”. Or is that just me?
If your metaphor for keeping track involves constantly fluid moving parts then I guess it’ll seem fairly tricky. 🙂 But earlier I walked into Windsor and sometimes I was walking on freshly mowed grass, sometimes a muddy footpath and other times a paved road. Because my feet were on the ground and my attention was on the outside, it wasn’t any effort to notice when the environment changed. Even if I disappeared inside my head for a while, I can still look back and remember that the playing fields were mostly grassy (although some of the time I was cutting across the gravelly running track) and the road up to the castle was mostly hard under my feet (although there were also some sandy bits). People look, sound and feel different when they’re primarily representing in V, A and K. If you notice the changes like bends in a flowing river, then I think it becomes part of how you listen, and then it’s easy.
James Tripp
20 May 2011
Their is a lot to notice about language and behaviour, so I think zeroing in on VAKOG is probably a little reductionist…. BUT not without value.
Personally, as a rapport building device, I don’t really rate tracking VAK shifts and matching… at least not at a conscious level! At an unconscious competence level, I’m sure it is a useful PART of a rapport skill set.
Consciously speaking, following and utilising metaphors certainly seems easier than following and utilising VAK shifts. Last time I taught Practitioner I taught this first.
One thing that is true… from a conversational perspective matching at VAK can be a lot more subtle than just banging peoples exact wordings back (overdo this, and people will notice, but they will likely never consciously notice VAK matching).
James
trine
20 May 2011
currently on a exec journalist programme which involves forensic data analysis, using tools i didnt know existed. Which was how VAK used to be ,now its familiar territory, and, as youve said widely used. Were working with mapping and visualisation tools, to find deeper meanings behind the news,which is what you do judy!
Get beyond the words.
trine
20 May 2011
and of course as you’d expect of journalists theres narrative,and metaphor, adds texture to text, and the kinesthetic feeling of the story it beyond words
pauline
20 May 2011
The VAK stereotypes evolved as most of us know from Virginia Satir’s work The Satir Categories. The fact the Virginia was awarded a Nobel prize for her outstanding contribution to family therapy speaks for itself. Using The basis of this, together with Clean language, (Your Clean Language book is superb ) can be blended for outcomes. Not a red herring in my experience in business practitioner mode. However, the map is not the territory!!!
Peter
20 May 2011
pauline:
The fact the Virginia was awarded a Nobel prize for her outstanding contribution to family therapy speaks for itself…
Interesting what qualifies as fact in the NLP community 🙂
Because if the Nobel Prize referred to is the one instituted by Alfred Nobel in Sweden, then she is not on any list.
There are a lot of great work done by many people, but by overstating the ‘facts’ throw doubts, even on the true things.
Mike Booth
20 May 2011
Hi Judy, VAKOG is a brilliant model it helps to know where someone is in their internal representations. It is so useful in pacing them and thereby gaining rapport. Simple! Good questions! Keep them coming…. Mike
Peter
20 May 2011
VAK works, if used in an effectively.
My question is it the most effective ‘tool’ to use, and to teach…?
pauline
20 May 2011
Brilliant Peter. Your comments are quite true- so much information is distorted, even in the best NLP books. But I am so glad you responded and I gained some clarification. Being recognised by Nobel prize recipients is not the same as being a recipient, and I am so happy to be guided nearer to the truth.
However, Virginia Satir did leave an enormous influence on understanding human behaviour, as you say, overstating the facts does indeed throw doubt, even on the true elements.
Again thanks,Peter.
And also Judy-great blog!!
It’s taking so long to
Andrew
21 May 2011
I am a big believer in the VAK, or rather VAKOG theory, and use it regularly with my clients. During the interview I will make verbal notes of which sensory language is most prevalent. Once notes, I change my own language in order to build rapport. I then apply the VAKOG theory to the language I use for hypnotic induction, trance, deepening and suggestion, and I find this gets me better results than if I don’t use VAKOG. I also got a great tip from Richard Nongard about Fractionation – if the client shows a (K) bias use open/close eyes fractionation, if they display an (A) bias, then use a numeric fractionation, but if they show a (V) bias then use a visualization fractionation technique – it works very well!
Bob Gorman
21 May 2011
Dawna Markova added what I believe is a major increase in the usability of the V A K preferences. She claimed, with excellent proof that we all use all 3, (technically 5) but in different sequences. This yields 6 patterns: VAK, VKA, AKV, AVK, KVA, & KAV. The 1st letter is how we prefer to input the exterior world. For me, a VAK, when I walk into a room the first thing I notice is sights, my brain then processes these sights thru and internal dialogue leading to a ‘conclusion’ or final ‘feeling’. She also completes the circle by going from, for me, an initial internal feeling, or gut sense, which I then internally dialogue about and finally draw a picture. She also maps difficulties in any of these transitions to both learning & sharing difficulties.
She’s written many books & produced audio tapes as well.
Great book:
How Your Child Is Smart: A Life-Changing Approach to Learning by Dawna Markova
In her audio series, “The Open Mind,” she talks about her learning styles theory.
I find this like many style preferences most useful when I use it intuitively. I train my intuition with exercises like highlighting transcripts.
Bob
MichaelM
21 May 2011
I use and teach VAK and eye accessing cues, at the very least as a useful reminder that a universe going on behind the eye (movements) and the predicates.
I make clear that there are many who do not accept the theory, so it’s not Gospel – except where it is, of course.
I’ve found that, the less effort I put into ‘trying’ to track, the easier it is to ‘stay on track’ and to call to mind something that was said, or sighed, or gestured 45 minutes ago.
Like Bob, I also trust and use my intuition to make connections – and assumptions, which I’ll usually check-out with my clients.
Working with groups, families, teams, or mediating, I ‘broadcast’ VAKs on the premise that what I’m saying is more likely to look, and feel right enough of the time to establish enough rapport with enough people to create a positive energy that envelops everyone. Mostly it works.
Go well