Meta Model · Pattern 1 of 13
Mind Reading
Claiming to know another person's internal state or intention without specifying how that knowledge was obtained.
Recover: Source of the information — what was seen, heard or told
What it is
The speaker reports someone else's inner world as fact. The evidence — what they actually saw, heard or were told — has been left out, so a guess is presented as knowledge. Practitioners recover the source of the information.
Recognition / tip-offs
What has been distorted, generalised or deleted
- Distorted: a guess about someone's inner state is treated as known fact
- Deleted: the evidence — what was seen, heard or said
- Deleted: any alternative explanation for the behaviour
Client-language use
Clients build whole problems on mind reads: "My manager thinks I'm not committed." The behaviour that triggered the conclusion is usually much smaller than the conclusion itself.
How to challenge it
Ask for the source of the information without implying the client is wrong. Curiosity, not correction.
- “How do you know?”
- “Did they tell you that?”
- “What specifically tells you that?”
- “What did you see or hear that leads you to that conclusion?”
Practitioner judgement: challenge what is useful, not every pattern you can hear.
What to recover
You are recovering evidence and separating observation from interpretation. Watch your own language too: "I know exactly what you mean" is you mind reading the client. Say instead: "Let me check what you mean."
Client autonomy first — offer language the client can verify and decline.
Examples
“I know he doesn't like me.”
Missing How the speaker knows — what he did or said.
Challenge: “How do you know he doesn't like you?”
“They're only pretending to be friendly.”
Missing The evidence of pretence, and their actual intention.
Challenge: “What specifically tells you it's pretence?”
“You're just saying that because you want something from me.”
Missing How the motive was established.
Challenge: “What did I do that told you I want something?”
Also Cause & Effect — 'because' links motive to speech.
Common confusion and overlap
- Overlap: mind reads often ride on Cause & Effect ('because they want something')
- Mind reading the client yourself instead of checking
- Arguing that the client is wrong rather than recovering the evidence
Practice this pattern
Hear it
0%
Unpack it
0%
Question it
0%
Build it
0%
Use it live
0%