Hierarchy of Ideas
Hierarchy of Ideas
Movement through levels of abstraction — up, down and sideways, on purpose.
KNOW WHERE YOU ARE → KNOW WHICH DIRECTION YOU NEED → MOVE DELIBERATELY.
Language happens at a level of abstraction. Every conversation sits somewhere on a hierarchy, and most stuck conversations are stuck because everyone is standing on the wrong level for the job. Chunking is the deliberate act of changing level.
CHUNK UP
MORE ABSTRACT / BROADER
Move broader and more abstract. Up is where you discover categories, purpose, intention, connection, commonality and possible agreement.
- “What is this an Example of?”
- “For What Purpose...?”
- “What is your intention...?”
Categories · Purpose · Intention · Connection · Commonality · Agreement
CHUNK DOWN
MORE SPECIFIC / DETAIL
Move more specific. Down is where you find examples, details, distinctions, parts and concrete, actionable information.
- “What are examples of this?”
- “What specifically...?”
- “…or any appropriate Meta Model question.”
Examples · Details · Distinctions · Parts · Concrete information
MOVE ACROSS
SAME-LEVEL / PARALLEL EXAMPLE
Another example at roughly the same level of abstraction. In practice you get there by chunking up to the broader class or pattern, then chunking down a different branch.
- “What is another example of the same thing?”
- “What else is an example of this broader class?”
Siblings · Parallel examples · Another world with the same structure
Pull back, then descend
CHANGE THE LEVEL. CHANGE WHAT BECOMES VISIBLE.
GT
A trim level. One specific thing.
Chunking elevator
Know where you are. Know which direction you need. Move deliberately.
BIG PICTURE / ABSTRACT
Purpose, intention, connection, agreement. Broad enough to include everybody, too broad to act on.
In trance · Intuitor · Big picture · Abstract / Milton Model
CLASSES / CATEGORIES / EXAMPLES
Where things have names and siblings. The level where lateral movement is easiest.
Working level for most coaching conversations
DETAILS / PARTS / DISTINCTIONS
Specifics, parts, sequences, actions. Concrete enough to do, narrow enough to lose the point.
Out of trance · Sensor · Details · Specific / Meta Model
Above · more abstract / broader
You are here · current level
CARS
From CARS the manual shows two different downward relationships.
Across · same level, parallel example
Below · more specific / detail
Make a move — the label tells you which direction you took.
The three chunk-up questions are three different moves
“What is this an Example of?”
Toward category / generalisation — the class this thing belongs to.
“A Fiero?” → “A Pontiac.” → “A car.” → “Transportation.”
“For What Purpose...?”
Toward purpose — what the thing is for, the function it serves.
“I want the car.” → “For what purpose?” → “So I can get to work reliably.”
“What is your intention...?”
Toward intention — what the person is trying to achieve by it.
“I keep pushing him on it.” → “What is your intention?” → “I want to be respected.”
Chunking down and the Meta Model
Chunking down and the Meta Model are the same direction of travel. Rather than repeat those thirteen patterns here, use the Meta Model module for the precision questions — this module trains knowing WHEN and HOW FAR to go down.
Chunk down = undelete, undistort, ungeneralise. Chunk up = the Milton Model's direction of travel. Hierarchy of Ideas is the map that connects the two.
The manual hierarchy
Existence down to lug nuts — and from CARS, the two different downward relationships. Each node is tagged “is a kind of” or “is a part of”.
- EXISTENCE
- MOVEMENTis a kind of ↑
- TRANSPORTATIONis a kind of ↑
- BUSESis a kind of ↑
- BOATSis a kind of ↑
- CARSis a kind of ↑
- CLASSES / CATEGORIESis a kind of ↑
- BMWis a kind of ↑
- Pontiacis a kind of ↑
- Fierois a kind of ↑
- GTis a kind of ↑
- PARTSis a part of ↑
- Doorsis a part of ↑
- Wheelsis a part of ↑
- Hub Capsis a part of ↑
- Lug Nutsis a part of ↑
- PLANESis a kind of ↑
- TRAINSis a kind of ↑
The Structure of Intuition
Manual wording: “Chunk up to find connections and relationships, then chunk back down.”
UP TO CONNECT. DOWN TO APPLY.
Intuition, in this model, is not a mystical event. It is a two-move sequence: chunk up until this situation resembles other situations, notice the relationship, then chunk back down and answer the only question that matters — how does that connection relate to what is in front of me now?
DETAIL / CURRENT SITUATION
↑
Where you start. Specific, close.
PATTERN / CONNECTION
↓
Up one or more levels: what is this an example of, and what else behaves this way?
CURRENT SITUATION / APPLICATION
Back down: what does that pattern tell me to do here, specifically?
Recovery / failure mode
Chunking up and stopping. A lovely abstraction that never returns to the situation is not intuition, it is drift. The return trip is the skill.
The Structure of Overwhelm: Too Big Chunks
Manual wording: “The Structure of Overwhelm: Too Big Chunks.”
IF YOU CANNOT ACT ON IT, YOU ARE STANDING TOO HIGH.
Overwhelm has a structure, and the structure is chunk size. 'LAUNCH THE BUSINESS' is a true description and a useless instruction — no hand can perform it. The recovery is downward: keep chunking down until you reach a unit somebody could actually start this afternoon.
Too big to act on
LAUNCH THE BUSINESS
One level down — parts
- Decide what I sell
- Get paid somehow
- Tell people it exists
Actionable today
- Write one sentence describing the offer
- Open the payment account
- Message three people who already asked
Recovery / failure mode
Notice non-actionability as the signal. Then: “What are examples of this?” and “What specifically would be the first piece?” until the answer is something a person could do in an hour.
The Structure of Nit-Picking: Chunking Down and Mismatching
Manual wording: “The Structure of Nit-Picking: Chunking Down and Mismatching.”
TOO FAR DOWN, SORTING FOR WHAT IS WRONG. CHUNK UP TO THE POINT.
Nit-picking is a descent that will not stop, combined with sorting for what is different or wrong at each new level of detail. Every objection is individually accurate and the conversation still goes nowhere, because nobody is standing anywhere near the purpose any more.
The descent, sorting for what is wrong
- “The proposal is wrong.”
- “Well, the third paragraph is wrong.”
- “Actually the wording in the third line of it.”
- “And that comma changes the meaning.”
The recovery move — up
“What are we trying to achieve with this document?”
Recovery / failure mode
Recognise the pattern — increasing detail plus mismatching — then chunk up deliberately to purpose, outcome, agreement or context. Use it as a training model of a conversational structure, never as a label for a person.
Agreement & mediation
In mediation, chunk up to get agreement. Chunk up until you get a nominalization.
Two positions that clash at the level of method often serve the same intention one or two levels up. The mediation move is to chunk up each position — “for what purpose?” — until a shared word appears, usually a nominalization such as fairness, safety, quality or respect.
The manual's cue is to chunk up until you reach a nominalization. That is where agreement usually becomes possible — it is not a guarantee. A high-level word only counts when BOTH parties confirm it describes what they want. Until they say yes, you have a word, not an agreement.
Chunk too high and you get agreement with no content ('we both want a good outcome'). Once agreement is confirmed, chunk back down to method with the shared purpose held in place.
Worked example
- “We have to ship on Friday.”
- “We can't ship until the tests are green.”
Up one: Keep the promise we made to customers / Avoid shipping something broken
Up two: Both are protecting the customer's trust.
“Is it fair to say you both want customers to trust what we release?” — both say yes.
Back down: With that agreed: what could we release Friday that we can stand behind, and what waits?
Lateral chunking & metaphor lab
UP TO FIND THE STRUCTURE. SIDEWAYS TO FIND ANOTHER WORLD. DOWN TO MAKE THAT WORLD REAL.
A metaphor here is not one noun swapped for another. It is an isomorphic story: the important RELATIONSHIPS, sequence and process structure are preserved while the surface content changes completely. The listener does the mapping themselves — which is exactly why their choice stays intact.
MANUAL FOUNDATION: hierarchy, chunk-up/down questions, levels of abstraction, same-level siblings. MIND VILLAGE TRAINER METHOD / APP EXPANSION: the deliberate lateral procedure for building a coaching metaphor.
Step 1
START WITH THE CHUNK
Take the client's problem or structure as stated.
Step 2
CHUNK UP ONE LEVEL
“What is this an example of?” Identify the broader purpose, relationship, pattern, structure or function.
Step 3
CHUNK DOWN A DIFFERENT BRANCH
“What are other examples of this?” — deliberately not the branch you came from.
Step 4
CHOOSE A PARALLEL WORLD
A situation at roughly the same structural level.
Step 5
MAP THE RELATIONSHIPS
Carry the actors, sequence, obstacle and failed strategy across — not the nouns.
Step 6
BUILD THE STORY
Tell it inside the parallel world, coherently.
Step 7
INCLUDE THE SHIFT
A useful resource, change or outcome — without preaching the original problem.
Step 8
CHECK FIT AND NATURALNESS
Structural correspondence, indirectness, autonomy.
Metaphor builder · screen 1 of 8
Original situation
Choose or write a benign coaching or learning problem. Keep it ordinary — no trauma, no clinical material, no identifiable person.
Plain description of what is happening and what is not working.
Self-assessed. Nothing here is sent anywhere.
The closed bridge
Original problem
A person keeps repeating the same approach and getting the same result.
Structural pattern
Inflexible strategy — insufficient behavioural variety, increasing effort.
Parallel world
Navigation: a road with a blocked bridge.
A driver took the same road home every evening. One night the bridge was closed. He backed up and took another run at it, a little faster. Then he sat with the engine running. There was a map in the door pocket, older than the barrier, and it showed three other crossings. He got home later than usual, and knew the county rather better than he had that morning.
The person → The driver
The habitual approach → The same road, every evening
The result that will not change → The closed bridge
Trying harder → Another run at it, a little faster
Available alternatives, unnoticed → The map in the door pocket
Progress via a different method → Three other crossings
Shift
Progress came from changing route, not from pressing harder at the barrier.
- Never say 'you are the driver'.
- No moral at the end — the map is enough.
The wall, one section at a time
Original problem
Someone is overwhelmed by a large goal and cannot begin.
Structural pattern
Task too large — no workable unit size; the chunk cannot be acted on.
Parallel world
Building: a garden wall.
A bricklayer I knew never looked at a wall. He looked at the next course, and the string line, and whether the mortar was right that morning. If you asked him how long the wall would take he would say he had no idea, and then the wall would be finished on a Thursday, and he would be surprised along with everybody else.
The large goal → The wall
Non-actionable chunk size → Looking at the whole wall
The workable unit → The next course, the string line
Completion without overwhelm → Finished on a Thursday
Shift
Attention lives at the unit size that can be worked, and completion arrives anyway.
- Avoid 'brick by brick' as a slogan — the story has to do the work, not the phrase.
- No motivational instruction. The bricklayer is not advising anybody.
Rough drafts
Original problem
Perfectionism prevents starting.
Structural pattern
Threshold for action set too high; feedback postponed until completion.
Parallel world
Technology / craft: sketches and prototypes.
The studio kept a bin of sketchbooks nobody was allowed to show clients. Twenty versions of a hand, most of them wrong. The illustrator who filled the most sketchbooks was also the one whose finished pieces came back with the fewest changes. She said she preferred to be wrong on cheap paper, early, where it cost nothing.
Waiting for the work to be good before it exists → Refusing to sketch
Feedback postponed to the end → Only showing finished pieces
Low-cost early iteration → Wrong on cheap paper, early
Better outcome via faster feedback → The fewest changes at the end
Shift
Permission to be wrong early, cheaply, and to learn from the feedback.
- Do not add 'so you should just start' — that is advice in costume.
- Keep the sketchbooks private in the story; the point is low stakes, not exposure.
Two routes, one dinner
Original problem
Two people argue over their positions but share a higher purpose.
Structural pattern
Competing methods serving a shared intention.
Parallel world
Cooking: two chefs, one meal.
Two cooks shared a kitchen and disagreed about heat. One seared, one braised, and each thought the other was ruining perfectly good meat. What they had in common was that neither would send out a dry plate. The night they discovered that, they stopped arguing about the pan and started arguing about the timer, which turned out to be a much shorter argument.
Two positions → Sear versus braise
Method-level conflict → Arguing about the pan
Shared higher purpose → Never sending out a dry plate
Productive negotiation after agreement → Arguing about the timer
Shift
Common purpose located without either method being surrendered.
- The story does not force them to agree on method — that would misrepresent the model.
- Do not name 'chunking up' inside the story.
Bad metaphor vs structural metaphor
Original: Someone keeps applying the same failing approach with more effort.
You're like a person banging their head on a wall! You just need to stop banging and think positive — when one door closes, another opens. I read about a climber who never gave up and reached the summit. So don't give up either!
- Shallow word substitution — 'you're like a…' with no structure carried across
- Moralising: 'you just need to…'
- Obvious advice wearing a costume
- Unrelated inspirational story: the climber's structure is persistence, the opposite of the point
- Names the listener inside the story, removing all choice
A driver took the same road home every evening. One night the bridge was closed. He took another run at it, a little faster. Then he sat with the engine running, and found a map in the door pocket that showed three other crossings.
- Parallel relationship structure: effort against an unchanged method
- A coherent world with its own logic
- Indirect — the listener maps it themselves
- A relevant resource and shift: the map, the alternative route
- Listener choice preserved: no instruction is issued
Big-picture / detail associations
These are associations from the manual's own model of the hierarchy. They are teaching associations inside an NLP training model — not established scientific laws, and not a diagnosis of any person.
Broader / abstract end
In Trance · Intuitor · Big Picture · Abstract / Milton Model · Meta K-Type
Specific / detail end
Specific / Meta Model · Details · Sensor · Out of Trance · AD Type
Meta K-Type and AD Type appear in the manual as labels on the broad and specific ends of the hierarchy. No definition beyond that is invented here.
The manual also observes that people habitually chunk large or small, and that mismatched chunk size makes two people feel like they are talking past each other. Treat this as a training-model observation and a rapport skill — flex your own chunk size — rather than a personality label to hang on somebody.
- Big-chunk / small-chunk preferences are described here as an NLP training-model observation, not a fixed personality diagnosis.
- Ontology is often genuinely context-dependent: a steering wheel is a part of a car and a member of the class 'steering wheels'. Where an item is ambiguous, the app says so instead of forcing one answer.
- App mastery percentages measure practice on this device. They are not a certification.
Practice the lateral & metaphor work
All chunking modes
The 13 chunking moves
1. Chunk Up
Chunk Up — Category
“What is this an Example of?”
Move up one level of abstraction by naming the class the current thing belongs to.
2. Chunk Up
Chunk Up — Purpose
“For What Purpose...?”
Move up by asking what the thing is for.
3. Chunk Up
Chunk Up — Intention
“What is your intention...?”
Move up by asking what the person is trying to achieve.
4. Chunk Down
Chunk Down — Specifics
“What specifically...?”
Move down a level toward detail, distinction and concrete information.
5. Chunk Down
Chunk Down — Examples
“What are examples of this?”
Move down by naming members or instances of the current class.
6. Relations
Category vs Part
“Is a kind of” vs “is a part of”
The two different downward relationships — class membership and componenthood — and why confusing them breaks a hierarchy.
7. Move Across
Move Across — Lateral Chunking
Up one level → down a different branch
Reach another example at roughly the same level of abstraction by going up to the shared class and back down elsewhere.
8. Relations
Direction Selection
Objective first → then UP / DOWN / ACROSS
Choosing the direction of movement from the conversational objective, not by habit.
9. Chunk Up
Agreement Search
Chunk up both positions until a shared nominalization appears
Using upward movement to find, and then confirm, a shared purpose between positions.
10. Structures
Structure of Intuition
UP TO CONNECT. DOWN TO APPLY.
Chunk up to find connections and relationships, then chunk back down to relate the connection to the current situation.
11. Structures
Structure of Overwhelm
Too Big Chunks
Overwhelm as a chunk-size problem: the current level is too large to act on.
12. Structures
Structure of Nit-Picking
Chunking Down and Mismatching
A descent that will not stop, combined with sorting for what is wrong or different.
13. Move Across
Lateral Metaphor Construction
UP TO FIND THE STRUCTURE. SIDEWAYS TO FIND ANOTHER WORLD. DOWN TO MAKE THAT WORLD REAL.
Building a parallel story that preserves the important relationships of the original situation while changing all of the surface content.