Humanities and Social Sciences Review, CD-ROM. ISSN: 2165-6258 :: 1(4):187–200 (2012) THE IMPACT OF (MIS) ANCHORING IN CREATING A DIFFERENCE IN/DIFFERENT MEANING(S) Yasser K. R. Aman Minia University, Egypt. (Mis)anchoring is based on the claim that there may be a difference between the intention (stimulus) of the speaker/writer and that of the listener/reader. Both may refer to the same thing/concept but each reference retains a distinct situational meaning (response). Such a difference creates a double meaning which perceived by the reader who, in a way or another, builds up his own interpretation blended from both intentions he reads, or from the one intention that strikes a chord in him or finds an immediate anchor in his memory. As for the listener, his response, whether it is a state of anchoring or misanchoring, depends upon what his memory prioritizes as the best fit for the situation. Accordingly, incidents of everyday life, a movie or of a literary work may take an unexpected turn which produces different interpretation than the one intended. Taking NLP anchoring as a starting point prepares for and later creates a paradigm for measuring the richness and profitability of memories on which mis/anchoring is based. By discussing different literary works, movies and daily life events, using mis/anchoring as a reading mechanism, one concludes that a difference in/different meaning(s) can be crystallized in order to reach a better understanding of works under analysis. Keywords: NLP anchoring, Situational (mis)anchoring, Misunderstanding, Literary works, Movies. Introduction NLP Anchoring and Accidental/Situational Mis/Anchoring NLP anchoring can simply be diagramed as follows: Stimulus memory recall anchoring state change. Accidental/situational anchoring can similarly be diagramed: Stimulus memory recall mis/anchoring state change. The meaning of many works is reinforced, developed and interpreted by (mis)anchoring which associates a strong mental or emotional state to a stimulus. Intuitive judgment is part of the anchoring process and the context plays an important role in making the meaning clear. “Depending on the context, the word BANK will be interpreted as referring to money or to a river but not simultaneously to both, and the ambiguity is likely to be 187 188 YasserK.R.Aman resolved without being unnoticed” ( Morewedge and Kahneman). However, accidental/situational anchoring depends mainly on the person’s immediate memory; that is why an answer to the question “have you been to the bank recently?” will differ from a person to another accordingly. NLP, or oriented, anchoring is 1. the process by which memory recall, state change or other responses become associated with (anchored to) some stimulus, in such a way that perception of the stimulus (the anchor) leads by reflex to the anchored response occurring. The stimulus may be quite neutral or out of conscious awareness, and the response may be either positive or negative. Anchors are capable of being formed and reinforced by repeated stimuli, and thus are analogous to classical conditioning (Comprehensive NLP). However, accidental/situational anchoring may be misplaced in a way that the mental or emotional state and the perception are associated to a stimulus different from the one intended; thus, leading to misanchoring which occurs when the stimulus, which can have more than one meaning, is different from that the listener perceives. The process of anchoring is basically a mental one since “NLP also teaches that the unconscious stores conditioned responses and calls this process anchoring (Bandler and Grinder, 1979 p.70 qtd. in Rowan). In his article “Neurolinguistic Programming: A Systematic Approach to Change”, A. M. Steinbach states that a stimulus and its response are related to internal representations. However, he does not pay heed to the content (internal representation) which affects the form of behavior, which is evident in anchoring: 2. Every external stimulus is processed through internal representations, and a specific outcome is generated. Our fine sensory experiences are the basis for the strategies that we have for generating and guiding behavior.NLP concentrates on the form, not the content, of behavior (Steinbach). When an anchor (stimulus) is misplaced, at least two responses are produced: a true response and a false one. Of the seven presuppositions mentioned in Steinbach’s article, the third, fourth and sixth are relevant to (mis)anchoring: 3. The meaning of every communication is the response that it elicits, regardless of the communicator’s intent. Both verbal and nonverbal communication elicit a response in another person, which is frequently one that was not intended. It is important to be able to notice his responseand then alter your communication, if you are to communicate effectively. [When misachoring occurs a communicator should be smart enough to get the listener’s attention directed to his real intention]. 4. People are capable of one trial learning. A therapist can teach a patient the association between one response and another, or between an external stimulus and an internal response in one trial. This is called ‘anchoring’. [Accidental anchoring depends on the situation, not on a trial]. 5. Each person has all the resources he needs in his personal history to achieve his desired outcome [Brackets mine] (Steinbach). Of the various explicit NLP techniques used to help the patient evolve from his/her present state to the desired one, anchoring is listed and defined as “a basic intervention”. Reframing, another explicit technique, stresses the process of changing the behavior of the stimulus, which helps produce different meanings. “This is a technique which separates the intention of the The Impact of (Mis) Anchoring in Creating a Difference In/Different Meaning(s) 189 behavior from the behavior itself, and then attaches to the original stimulus alternative behaviors which satisfy the original intention. This particular intervention is extremely useful in medicine, for difficult problems such as pain control and compulsive behaviors (e.g. , overeating and smoking)” (Steinbach). Of course, situational/accidental anchoring differs from NLP anchoring since an element, a stimulus in NLP anchoring, is not intentionally added or repeated. Anchoring is a technique described by Anthony Robbins as Neuro Associative Conditioning (sporthealth4u.com, 2009.), in which the practitioner includes a new added element into the client’s experience while the client is recalling a memory or experiencing a particular state (Bandler and Grinder, 1979 p. 83). The added element is a neurological stimulus, most usually kinaesthetic, such as a hand touch on the client’s shoulder, but it can also be a visual picture or an audio stimulus such as a word or specific tone of voice. The ubiquitous phenomenon of anchors being ‘set up’ and then ‘fired’ can be observed in the comedian’s catch phase, the lovers’ song and the bread shop’s allure (Rowan). Rather, in situational/accidental anchoring, the situation creates an offhand stimulus, an anchor that works unconsciously, unlike NLP ones (O’Connor and Seymore 62), and recalls the immediate memory to the surface. Response to the situation may be an anchoring or a misanchoring. Gibson sees that one responds to conscious and subconscious anchors every day, claiming that one can set up anchors in order to achieve success regardless of the setting (183). However, she does not take into consideration offhand situations and situation-raised stimuli. What Hayes says about how anchoring works, can partially be applied to accidental anchoring. “It works on the same principle that is in place when a sensory stimulus puts us in mind of a particular time or context from our past” (69-70). In accidental anchoring the stimulus is situation-based; whereas NLP anchoring “is [essentially] using a stimulus” [Brackets mine](Hayes 70). (Mis)/Anchoring and Daily Life Anchoring on the jargon of a group enables one to discover whether someone with the same external appearance of the group members belongs and believes in the same group or not. Some Salafi, a bearded Muslim, was driving in an opposite direction, at which occasion a café man warned him in a loud voice saying “Forbidden”. The Salafi answered with a smile “ϚϴϠϋ ϦϨΤϳ Ϳ΍ ", [Allah yehanen alaik] “May Allah be tender and generous with you”. The café man said to café goers laughingly “He is not “original”—meaning he is not a true follower—because if he was, he would say “ ήϴΧ Ϟϛ Ϳ΍" ϙ΍ΰΟ" , [gazak Allah kol khair] “May Allah reward you with all good things”, which is the first reply expected from the salafi. In 2002, in Giza railway station, at the time SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), a virus that was much in rife in China, was widespread one of the porters, seeing a group of Chinese tourists, used the same techniques of African American innuendos and called “ αέΎγ Ύϳ [ya SARS] SARS”. On seeing Chinese tourists, the first response was anchoring on a cultural event. In the political arena mistaken identity-based misanchoring can have negative results. Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) was accused by Rep. Allen West (R-FL) of mistaking him for Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC). 190 YasserK.R.Aman Here’s what happened: Welch was wrapping up his own speech, looked in West’s direction, and said: “I see the gentleman from South Carolina.” West was the next speaker and began by chiding Welch: "I do need to correct my colleague from Vermont, I'm not from South Carolina, I'm from Florida but that's OK. I'm the guy with hair." Scott has a shaved head. Aides say the comment left the false impression that Welch was insensitive and mistaken. The Vermont Democrat’s office even received calls accusing him of being racist. His office says Welch was actually referring to South Carolina GOP Rep.