A FIML query shines a laser beam of light on a single data-point which has psychological importance for both partners.
In this respect and very importantly, a FIML query is unique among all speech acts. There is no other kind of speech act like a FIML query.
It is philosophically unique, psychologically unique, intellectually and emotionally unique, and linguistically unique.
The main reason FIML can be difficult for some people to learn is a FIML query is a unique speech act, not just a unique sentence or insight or idea. The act of making a FIML query with FIML intent is an act unique in human history.
This is not a trivial point.
It is not trivial for reasons stated above and also for the following reason: there exists no other way to accomplish what FIML accomplishes.
If you have tried FIML and found it odd or trivial or believe it is something you already do, or if you found it frustrating or petty or needlessly opaque, please think again.
FIML can be a bit hard to do mainly because you are doing something you have never done before.
Once you understand the method, it’s not difficult at all. If you crave novelty, creativity or psycho-intellectual growth, that right there is reason enough to do FIML.
Beyond that, the rewards are immense because once you understand the system you will begin optimizing your communication and language use to levels you never imagined possible.
Much of the work done in human semiotics involves analyses of semiotic codes.
Semiotics and semiotic codes are often treated like language or languages for which a grammar can be found.
One obvious problem with this sort of approach is semiotics indicates a set that is much broader than language. Stated another way, language is a subset of semiotics.
Human semiotics also include music, imagery, gesture, facial expression, emotion, and anything else that can communicate either within one mind or between two or more minds.
It is very helpful to analyze semiotic codes and it is very helpful to try to figure out how cultures, groups, and individuals use them. We can compare the semiotics of heroism in Chinese culture to that of French culture. Or the semiotics of gift-giving in American culture to that of Mexican culture. We can analyze movies, literature, science, and even engineering based on semiotic codes we have abstracted out of them.
We can do something similar for human psychology.
Analyses of this type are, in my view, general in that they involve schema or paradigms or grammars that say general things about how semiotic systems work or how individuals (or semiotic signs themselves) fit into those systems.
This is all good and general analyses of this sort can be indispensable aids to understanding.
General semiotic analyses are limited, however, in their application to human psychology because such analyses cannot effectively grasp the semiotic codes of the individual. Indeed general analyses are liable to conceal individual codes and interpretations more than usefully reveal them.
This is so because all individuals are always complex repositories of many general semiotic codes as well as many individual ones. And these codes are always changing, responding, being conditioned by new circumstances and many kinds of feedback.
Individuals as repositories of many codes, both external and internal, are complex and always changing and there is no general analysis that will ever fully capture that complexity.
For somewhat similar reasons, no individual acting alone can possibly perform a self-analysis that captures the full complexity of the many and always-changing semiotic codes that exist within them.
Self-analysis is far too subject to selection bias, memory, and even delusion to be considered accurate or objective. The individual is also far too complex for the individual to grasp alone. How can an individual possibly stand outside itself and see itself as it is? Where would the extra brain-space come from?
How can a system of complex semiotic codes use yet another code to successfully analyze itself?
Clearly, no individual human semiotic system can ever fully know itself.
To recap, 1) there is no general semiotic analysis that will ever capture the complexity of individual psychology, and 2) no individual acting alone can ever capture the complexity of the semiotic codes that exist within them.
Concerning point two, we could just as well say that no individual acting alone can ever capture the complexity of their own psychology.
We are thus prevented from finding a complex analysis of human psychology through a general analysis of semiotics and also through an individual’s self-analysis when acting alone.
This suggests, however, that two individuals acting together might be able to glimpse, if not grasp, how their complex semiotic codes are actually functioning when they interact with each other. If two individuals working together can honestly observe and discuss moments of dynamic real-time semiotic interaction between them, they should be able to begin to understand how their immensely complex and always-changing psycho-semiotic codes are actually functioning.
An approach of this type ought to work better for psychological understanding of the individuals involved than any mix of general semiotic analyses applied to them. Indeed, prefabricated, general semiotic analyses will tend to conceal the actual functioning of the idiosyncratic semiotics and semiotic codes used by those individuals.
The FIMLmethod does not apply a general semiotic analysis to human psychology. Rather it uses a method or technique to allow two individuals working together to see and understand how their semiotics and semiotic codes are actually functioning. ABN
If we consider humans to be complex signaling systems or networks, then it is readily apparent that each human network signals within itself and also is connected by signals to other networks.
the only significant interpersonal signaling data we can really know with significant certainty are data noticed, remembered, and agreed upon by two (or more in some cases) people engaged in significant interpersonal communication (signaling).
the fundamental impossibility of determining what anything means well enough to “translate” it into another context, a next sentence, into another person’s mind, or even “translating” your own speech from the past into the context of your mind today.
When we analyze a person based on vague ideas like “personality,” “psychology,” or “cognition,” we are principally assigning ambiguous referents to amorphous categories. We have more words but not much more understanding.
Cognition is a huge grab-bag of a word that means almost anything, as do the terms psychology and personality.
If we replace these terms with the concept of signaling networks, we gain specificity. For example, rather than analyzing the “cognitive-behavior” of a person we can more easily and profitably analyze their signaling.
The advantage of examining signaling rather than “cognitive-behavior” is signals are quite specific. They can usually be defined pretty well, they can be contextualized, and their communicative intent can be determined with reasonable specificity.
To be most effective, signaling analysis works best if we abandon the idea that we can accurately analyze the signals of someone else, especially if we do not analyze our own signals at the same time.
Moreover, a signaling analysis will work best if we do it with:
someone that we care about and that cares about us
someone with whom we can be completely honest and who will be completely honest with us
someone who is willing to spend the time to do the analyzing
Sad to say, it can be difficult to find two people who fit together in those ways, but that is how it is. Much of this problem is due to social expectations, which presently greatly reduce opportunities for clear, honest communication. And much of this is due to how we normally conceive of a person, as a bundle of vague things that cannot be pinned down.
The ideal signaling analysis will be done between close friends with the above qualifications. A signaling analysis will not work well, if at at all, if it is done between a professional and a patient. A professional psychologist would do the best for their patient by teaching them how to do signaling analysis with a friend. If they don’t have a friend, maybe one can be found; if not, a different approach should be used.
But you don’t have to have “problems” to do a signaling analysis. Everyone will benefit from it.
Signaling analysis works because partners learn to work with good data that has been generated between them during real-life situations. Having this data allows partners to do micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis on it. And these different levels help them see the specifics of a particular signal exchange, the immediate context of the exchange, and the larger social or historical context from which the exchange has derived some or much of its meaning.
For example, if clear data on a tone of voice has been agreed upon, both partners can then explain the micro antecedents and context of that data, the meso context of those antecedents, and if necessary the macro context that gave rise to either or both of those. The same outline applies to all micro data, be it tone, gesture, word choice, body language, reference, etc.
With practice, a new way of understanding communication will arise in partners’ minds. Rather than having a vague “cognition” about some poorly-defined “emotion” or “personality trait,” partners will find that they can benefit much more by simply analyzing what actually happened based upon data they both agree on.
It is very important for partners to do many analyses of specific micro-data, a single word or phrase, a single tone of voice, a single gesture, etc.. The reason for this is we can’t accurately remember much more than that. When we try to do more, we are pushed immediately out of specific micro data into vague meso or macro generalities that constitute nothing more than general categories with general references to other general categories. Rather than analyzing something that has actually occurred, we instead argue about general emotions, vague traits, unsubstantiated assumptions about “personalities,” and so on. ABN
I believe most people in the world are all but forced to resort to ulterior motives when dealing with others or being dealt with by them.
Furthermore, I believe most people are in this position so often they don’t just resort to hidden motivations, they expect them, are habituated to them, rely on them, and even enjoy them even though they cause immense suffering.
This situation arises due to fundamentally bad communication and the mistrust and uncertainty that devolve from it.
If communication is fundamentally bad (ambiguous, misleading, can’t be cleared up), there is no one you can trust but yourself. No one else you can rely on.
You are all but forced to conceal what your really think, feel, or want because you probably won’t be understood if you try to explain yourself honestly. Worse, you may get played.
Your interlocutor may genuinely misunderstand and cause you harm due to their wrong interpretation of what you said or meant. Or they may feign interest and honesty when they are just gathering dirt to use against you.
Can anyone deny this happens very often? And that normal people have no recourse but to play that game?
An ulterior motive is one that is concealed. A motive that is different from what is being communicated. We all know what that means and how destructive it can be.
Ulterior motives arise because we do not use our communication systems (mainly speech and listening) at all well. Instead of communicating honestly, we try to “read” the other person while at the same time calculating to what extent or how they are “reading” us.
This is a disgusting situation for people to have put themselves in.
This problem can be fixed with one other person, so you can have at least one friend who does not do this to you and to whom you do not do it either. That makes two people who can escape the deadening, anti-life maze of ulterior motivation madness.
The way to do it is through FIML. I do not believe there is any other way.
If many people do FIML, eventually many of us will see the problems of bad communication clearly. Many of us will realize that virtually all people are trapped in a system that all but forces them to lie to others while suffocating themselves.
Edit 10/07/17: Here is a pop culture analysis of how to tell if someone is lying: 9 WAYS TO SPOT A LIAR. Scroll down to the list and notice how crude and dubious these tells are, but this is what many people work with. It’s all we have. With a good partner, FIML can lead you to levels of truth far higher and deeper than this. In this world, we really have to develop FIML relationships to fully explore our own psychology and human psychology in general. Without FIML, you are permanently locked out of your own depths by being trapped in ordinary communication which is accurately characterized by the shallowness of the linked article.
Research suggests FIML, or Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics, is a communication technique to improve relationships by addressing misinterpretations in real-time.
It seems likely that FIML involves partners interrupting conversations to clarify emotional reactions, aligning with Buddhist principles of mindfulness.
The evidence leans toward FIML supporting advanced Right Speech and Right Listening, potentially transforming lives by enhancing understanding.
Description
What is FIML? FIML, or Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics, is a method designed to optimize communication and psychological well-being between two people. It’s described as a form of analytical psychotherapy that doesn’t require formal training, focusing on clearing up misunderstandings as they happen.
How It Works Partners agree to interrupt normal conversations when one feels an emotional reaction to something said. The reacting partner asks the other about their state of mind at that moment, and the other responds honestly. This process helps identify if the reaction was based on a misinterpretation, with follow-up questions for clarity. Repeating this frequently can develop better communication skills.
Connection to Buddhism FIML aligns with Buddhist teachings, supporting advanced forms of Right Speech and Right Listening. It’s seen as a practical application of mindfulness, based on impermanence and emptiness, potentially leading to personal transformation by freeing individuals from ordinary speech constraints.
Unexpected Detail: Precision Comparison Interestingly, FIML is compared to the James Webb Space Telescope for its clarity in communication, suggesting it offers a much sharper understanding than typical conversations, likened to using an old Hale telescope.
Survey Note: Comprehensive Analysis of FIML Based on American Buddhist Net
This note provides a detailed examination of Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML) as presented on American Buddhist Net, focusing on its description, practice, and relation to Buddhist principles. The analysis aims to offer a thorough understanding for readers interested in communication techniques and their philosophical underpinnings.
Background and Definition
FIML is defined on American Buddhist Net as a technique for optimizing communication and psychological well-being between two people. It is described as a form of analytical psychotherapy that can be practiced without formal training, emphasizing real-time analysis to clear mistaken psychological interpretations. This approach is particularly noted for addressing both recent and long-held miscommunications, enhancing the relationship dynamics between partners.
The site compares FIML to advanced scientific instruments, such as the James Webb Space Telescope, for its clarity in communication, contrasting it with normal speech, which is likened to using the older Hale telescope. This analogy underscores FIML’s potential to provide precise, high-resolution insights into interpersonal interactions.
Practice and Methodology
The practice of FIML involves a structured process, detailed in How to do FIML. Partners must first agree to interrupt normal conversations when needed, creating a foundation for open communication. The process unfolds as follows:
Step Number
Description
1
Partners agree to do FIML and can interrupt normal conversation as needed.
2
One partner feels a sensation or emotional reaction within one second after the other says something.
3
The reacting partner asks, “What was your state of mind when you said X?” seeking the other’s short-term memory contents.
4
The other partner answers honestly, describing their state of mind during the few seconds surrounding the statement.
5
If the reacting partner finds no justification for their reaction, they realize it was a misinterpretation, trusting the other’s honesty.
6
Follow-up questions, e.g., “Are you sure you were not implying boredom when you said X?” may be asked for clarity.
7
The reacting partner discusses the new understanding with the other, briefly or at length, as chosen.
8
The process is repeated frequently; after a few hundred successful instances, metacognition may develop, reducing the need for frequent interruptions.
The term “sensation” is clarified as an emotional, physical, or hormonal response occurring soon after something is said, starting at a discreet moment, and can be negative or positive. Mindfulness is crucial, with partners encouraged to observe these sensations within one second and make queries in a neutral tone to avoid further reactions.
Additional resources on the site, such as FIML and practical semiotics, Advanced FIML, and FIML FAQs, provide further guidance on refining the practice, addressing issues like snowballing in practice and disruption of neurotic responses.
Relation to Buddhism
FIML’s integration with Buddhism is a significant aspect, as outlined in various articles on American Buddhist Net. It is described as supporting advanced Right Speech and Right Listening, aligning with Buddhist principles of impermanence and emptiness. This connection is detailed in What is FIML?, where it is noted as a method or process, not formalities, meeting requirements for creating Right Conditions for these advanced practices.
The site suggests that FIML can transform one’s life by freeing individuals from the constraints of Ordinary Speech, as seen in Notes on semiotics, FIML, Buddhism, and a bit of anthropology. This article highlights how FIML corrects distortions in thinking or feeling that may arise from practicing Buddhism in isolation, emphasizing the importance of truthful interaction with an honest partner. It posits that early Buddhists might have engaged in similar practices during their travels in pairs or fortnightly discussions of failings, a tradition that has declined in many places.
Further, The deep importance of intentional language discusses FIML as a profound philosophical answer to language and communication, revealing real-time speech analysis that moves meaning to true experience, resonating with Buddhist mindfulness. Global Workspace Theory and mistake awareness & correction links FIML to calibrating minds like fine instruments, playing the FIML communication game for precise readings, reinforcing its mindfulness aspect.
Significance and Impact
The significance of FIML lies in its potential to enhance communication precision, as evidenced by its comparison to advanced telescopes. This unexpected detail highlights its capability to offer clarity beyond typical conversational exchanges, potentially revolutionizing how partners understand each other. The site also suggests that FIML can address interpersonal conundrums arising from the Problem of the Criterion, as noted in Buddhism category posts, impacting daily relationships and communication at every level.
Author and Context
While specific author information is not directly provided, the site’s posts, such as About, indicate it is run by ABN, focusing on Buddhism, communication, and FIML. The contact email, realABN@pm.me, as seen in Contact, suggests a personal engagement with readers, reinforcing the site’s role as a platform for sharing and discussing these ideas.
Conclusion
FIML, as presented on American Buddhist Net, is a robust communication technique with deep ties to Buddhist philosophy, offering a practical method for enhancing interpersonal relationships through mindfulness and real-time analysis. Its structured practice, alignment with Buddhist principles, and potential for personal transformation make it a valuable tool for those seeking to improve communication and psychological well-being.
Grok used 45 seconds to deep search FIML and produce the above result, posted in full, minus one short paragraph. It did a good job. I am fine with posting this and encouraging readers to look it over. Done properly and for a reasonable amount of time, FIML is deeply life-enhancing. It probably should become a fundamental part of Buddhist practice. Grok did the summary on 03/07/2025. ABN
Since virtually everything we do, think, and feel has some linguistic component it follows that our perceived valences of words and phrases will be reliable indicators of our psychological makeup.
This is especially true if our perceptions of these valences is “captured” in fraught contexts in real-world, real-time situations.
To be even clearer and more precise, it is fair to say that it is only possible to capture actual real valences in real-world, real-time situations.
When we do not work with real-world, real-time situations, we are capable only of working with the idea of them, a theory of them, a memory of them. And none of that can possibly capture the actual valence as it actually functions in real-life.
The theory, memory, or idea of a psychological valence associated with words and phrases occurs at a different level of abstraction or cognition from the valence itself.
Theories, memories, and ideas of psychological valences can be very interesting and are worth pursuing, but they are not the thing itself and as such have only a weak capacity to grasp the psychology exposed by actual valences in action in the real-world.
From these maps we can see that word groups have idiosyncratic arrangements, associations, and emphases.
And from this we can understand how analysis of interpersonal communication details can lead to beneficial changes in word group arrangements and thus also human psychology.
The video is very helpful for visualizing how words and word groups are organized in the brain. And this illustrates how and why FIML works as well as it does.
By “capturing” actual verbal psychological valences in real-time, real-world situations, partners gain immense insight into how their psychologies actually function in the real-world, how they actually deal with real life.
Focusing on very brief real-life valences has another very large benefit: though the valences are as real as they come, they are also very small, comprising nothing more than part of the working memory load at the time.
This is a bigger deal than it might seem. Virtually all of us have been trained by years of theorizing about our psychologies to see even very small incidents of real psychological valence as aspects of some theory or story about them.
No, no, no. Don’t do that. Just see each one for what it is—a brief valences that appeared briefly in working memory; and that has been “frozen” by the FIML technique as a small snapshot to be identified and understood as it is.
First get the evidence, get the data. Those valence snapshots are the data. Get plenty of them and you may find that you do not even need any theory about what they are or what caused them.
They just are. Indeed, theorizing about them makes them different, bigger or worse, while simultaneously hiding their real nature.
Most of us do not know how to think about real-world, real-time valences because we tend to always fit them into into an a priori format, a format we already believe in. That could be a theory of psychology or a take on what our personality is or what the other person’s personality is.
In the maps shown in the video, that would constitute a whole brain response to a small valence that appeared only briefly.
By using the FIML technique, you will find it is much easier and much more beneficial to reorganize small parts of the verbal map one piece at a time than to reorganize the entire map all at once based on some idea.
In practice, FIML deals with more than just words and phrases, but the whole practice can be largely understood by seeing how it works with language. FIML treats gestures, tone of voice, expressions, and so on in the same way as language—by isolating brief incidents and analyzing them for what they really are.
FIML is a specific semiotic, but it also says interesting things about the general semiotics of all languages and communication systems.
As a specific semiotic, FIML influences individual psychology, behavior, and thought. Since FIML rules can be generalized and taught, FIML also shows something about all languages and their uses.
FIML is a way that two people can check the specific semiotics that exists between them. Without FIML, or something like it, individuals cannot do this.
If an individual does not do FIML or something very similar in their primary relationship, that relationship will be characterized by semiotics extrinsic to the relationship and/or by illusions.
I don’t want to overemphasize the semiotic content of FIML practice, but a basic sense of how signs and symbols are interpreted can be a great help to understanding FIML.
In FIML practice, your partner can explain the “text” of what they said much better than you can interpret it. This can only happen if both partners are honest and trust each other and the interpretation/explanation of the “text” is brought up quickly enough that little or nothing has been forgotten by either partner.
As for honesty and trust, it is my guess that these areas can be a problem for people because we humans are almost always required to interpret what is said to us without any possible recourse to a better explanation. There are three major reasons for this: 1) convention, habit; 2) timing; and 3) emotion.
Taking the second reason first, timing makes it very difficult to get good information about what a speaker means because when we ask quickly enough for them to actually still be able to remember, we will appear confrontational or rude. The speaker will become flustered and often answer with an excuse rather than an explanation.
This happens due to factor three, emotion. Language evolved in hierarchical societies. To question someone quickly about what they said is to seem to question them, to doubt them. In hierarchies, we do not question the orders we are given. We wait our turn, we let the speaker finish, we don’t interrupt, etc. Yet, if we don’t act quickly—within a few seconds—the speaker will have forgotten the fullness of their mind at the moment they spoke. Their explanation for the “text,” for what they said, will be lost forever, even if we have a video recording of it.
Due to the quickness of human emotion, virtually all societies everywhere have constructed rules for listening and speaking that completely preclude a FIML-type inquiry. Most beginning FIML partners will, therefore, experience some difficulty getting used to FIML queries. Our moods, emotions, mental states, thoughts, and more have all been long conditioned by social forces that constrain us in the very place where we need more freedom—getting the real explanation from our partner to replace our interpretation.
You would never want to run a business or do an engineering project based on ambiguous interpretations, but most of us conduct our love lives and friendships in just that way.
FIML is a specific semiotic in that it deals with the communications between two specific individuals. FIML does not tell these individuals what to think, say, or believe. It merely provides a technique for them to fully explore the semiotics and all ramifications of those semiotics that occur between them. A general semiotic is one that says something about all languages. FIML fixes a general weakness that occurs, to the best of my knowledge, in all human languages.
A recent study on personal space, reported in Personal Space Is a Fear Response, shows that this fear response can be stimulated by words alone.
When placed in an MRI—and told a person was standing over the machine—[people with normal amygdalae] showed heightened activity in their amygdala; when they were told the person was further away from the machine, the activity returned to normal. This shows, says the study’s leader, Ralph Adolphs, that the belief that someone is too close for comfort is enough to spark the same activity as if they actually are.
You could also say that just hearing the words that “someone is too close for comfort is enough to spark the same activity as if they actually are.”
I doubt I need to illustrate this idea as most readers are surely aware that all people have many strong emotional responses to words, gestures, facial expressions, as well as personal space encroachments.
In the basal ganglia, two main types of paths carry opposing messages: One carries a ‘go’ signal which spurs an action, the other a ‘stop’ signal.
Experiments by Duke neurobiology graduate student Justin O’Hare found that the stop and go pathways were both more active in the sugar-habit mice. O’Hare said he didn’t expect to see the stop signal equally ramped up in the habit brains, because it has been traditionally viewed as the factor that helps prevent a behavior.
The team also discovered a change in the timing of activation in the two pathways. In mice that had formed a habit, the go pathway turned on before the stop pathway. In non-habit brains, the stop signal preceded the go.
These changes in the brain circuitry were so long-lasting and obvious that it was possible for the group to predict which mice had formed a habit just by looking at isolated pieces of their brains in a petri dish. (same link as just above)
The study on habits is about mice with sugar habits, but I think it is fair to hypothesize that something similar happens with humans in their use of communication cues.
Humans, in my view, habituate to semiotic stimuli in much the same way that mice habituate to sugar.
The Duke study shows that the stop pathway grew as much as the go pathway in the mice, the main difference being that the go pathway turned on before the stop pathway.
Since human language and its uses is more complex than mice habituated to too much sugar, there must be many more stop and go pathways within the language and communication networks of human beings.
Many of these pathways will be similar among people in the same culture, but many of them won’t. Each human being is a repository of a multitude of idiosyncratic emotional and semantic responses and outputs.
So how do you figure out what your pathways are? And how do you correct ones that aren’t working well? And similarly, how do you figure out your partner’s pathways?
FIML practice helps partners to both identify their idiosyncratic communication habits and correct ones that are not working well. FIML finds and corrects pathways through micro-analysis.
It seems very likely to me that a FIML-style analysis corrects mistaken communication pathways by bringing the stop pathway to the fore. When a particular mistaken response is stopped a few times and under analysis seen to be wrong, the go pathways for that response will tend to be extirpated.
By using words to analyze micro units of miscommunication, FIML partners tap into the power of words to change actual pathways of neurons in their brains, thus reorganizing the deep linguistic basis of habitual psychological responses, no matter how idiosyncratic.
A new study on working memory has some intriguing insights into how working memory works and how it doesn’t work.
It’s widely known that when working memory is overtaxed, confusion results, skills decline, while feelings of frustration and anger may arise. The reason for this seems to be:
Feedback (top-down) coupling broke down when the number of objects exceeded cognitive capacity. Thus, impaired behavioral performance coincided with a break-down of Prediction signals. This provides new insights into the neuronal underpinnings of cognitive capacity and how coupling in a distributed working memory network is affected by memory load. (Working Memory Load Modulates Neuronal Coupling)
A well-written article about this study contains the following diagram and explanation:
Miller thinks the brain is juggling the items being held in working memory one at a time, in alternation. “That means all the information has to fit into one brain wave,” he said. “When you exceed the capacity of that one brain wave, you’ve reached the limit on working memory.”
…The prefrontal cortex seems to help construct an internal model of the world, sending so-called “top-down,” or feedback, signals that convey this model to lower-level brain areas. Meanwhile, the superficial frontal eye fields and lateral intraparietal area send raw sensory input to the deeper areas in the prefrontal cortex, in the form of bottom-up or feedforward signals. Differences between the top-down model and the bottom-up sensory information allow the brain to figure out what it’s experiencing, and to tweak its internal models accordingly. (Emphasis added)
Working memory works via connections between three brain regions that together form a coherent brain wave.
Notice that “an internal model of the world,” which is a “top-down signal” within the brain wave feedback loop, predicts or interprets “bottom-up” sensory input as it arrives in the brain.
I believe this “top-down signal” within working memory is the reason FIML practice has such enormous psychological value.
By analyzing minute emotional reactions in real-time during normal conversation, FIML practice disrupts the consolidation, or more often the reconsolidation, of “neurotic” responses. (Disruption of neurotic response in FIML practice)
FIML optimizes human psychology by helping partners intervene directly into their working memories to access real-world top-down signals as they are happening in real-time. Doing this repeatedly reliably alters the brain’s repository of top-down interpretations, making them much more accurate and up-to-date.
The model of working memory proposed in this study also explains why FIML can be a bit difficult to do. Partners must learn to allow a FIML meta-perspective or “super top-down” signal to quickly commandeer their working memories so that analysis of whatever just happened can proceed rationally and objectively. It does take some time to learn this skill, but it is no harder than many other “automated” skills such bicycling, typing, or playing a musical instrument.
Human psychology is greatly affected by human language. Since humans normally use language rather crudely and almost always are confined within meanings already established in language, their psychologies are fundamentally both crude and unnecessarily confined within narrow ranges of meaning and understanding.
This causes emotionality, discord, dependence, frustration, anger, and violence. Our normal uses of language often stimulate basic instincts that we either have to control or be controlled by.
I usually discuss this problem as it occurs during interpersonal conversation, where it is generally most serious and where our “personalities” are generally formed. But it also exists in texting, emails, news stories, and even scientific peer reviewed papers.
The basic underlying problem is we do not communicate well, almost no one does. Even very articulate, well-educated, intelligent people with good upbringings and admirable personalities have this problem. In fact, they often have it even worse than everyone else because their considerable skills have trapped them even worse.
The trap is using established meaning or interpretation to override mistakes in interpersonal communication. The established meaning can be learned from others or self-generated. Either way, when it is used to override mistakes in communication (and this happens often) the person is trapped in a labyrinth of false references: the lived and learned matrix of their personality; the neuronal structures of idiosyncratic memories and behaviors that constantly misguide the sufferer through a tautological existence.
When data is bad the output will be bad. When interpersonal data is bad, and far too much of it is, the output in speech, listening, and cogitating will be bad. When everyone is like this, the output will be horrendous. Look around you at our world as it becomes less truthful and more absurd daily. The root cause is massive amounts of uncorrected bad data at all levels of society.
My contribution toward fixing this mess is FIML, which deals “only” with the enormous problems of close or intimate interpersonal communication.
When two people do FIML conscientiously, all of their problems born of long histories of many mistakes can be cleared up. If you want to do this, if you want to optimize your being; find a good partner and do FIML. As of today, there is no other way. If you can see the problem, you will understand why FIML works. If you do FIML even without fully understanding it, you will still fix the problem and will eventually come to see how it’s not just your problem: all people everywhere have it and have always had it. I do not know why I am the first person to provide a solution to it.
The problem is very obvious but it is so big and widespread, people either do not see it or believe it cannot be fixed.
Done properly, FIML takes the worst parts of communication and treats them as the most interesting. And they are interesting. I guarantee you will see yourself and your partner very differently after a few months of FIML practice. Vague impressions and uncertain emotions, many of which you may not even be aware of, will give way to an increasing fineness of detail and definition in your communications with each other. And this will have a major impact on how you view yourself, and how you talk to yourself. The same will be true for your partner.
Another way of looking at FIML is to understand that you and your partner are creating your own micro-culture. What is in your culture and how it works is up to you. I don’t think it will work well or last long if you do not have an ethical basis for it, but beyond that, the rest is up to you. As a side note, FIML cannot possibly work if one partner is dishonest. There is no point in doing it if you plan to lie. Please see How to do FIML for a complete explanation of what is meant by honesty and what its limits within FIML practice are.
As partners progress in FIML practice, they will notice that each FIML query becomes a sort of example that expands within the mind. Once you notice a mistaken impression in one area and have dealt with it, you will probably notice that that same mistake is being repeated in other areas. This will strengthen your initial insights and make it easier to correct other occurrences of that mistake. Once you succeed in this a few times, you will experience significant feelings of relief and an increase in mental and emotional energy because your mind is no longer working against itself in that area.
And all of this will make FIML practice easier and more fluid in any other areas that come up. Just knowing that you have done FIML successfully and that both partners are willing and able to benefit from further FIML discussions is a huge relief. Not much is going to bother either one of you because you both know that you have the tools to deal with whatever presents itself.
Remember that FIML is not about judging. FIML is not about consciously or unconsciously importing structures or judgments from the large culture around you into the micro-culture you are co-forming with your partner. An example of what I mean could be tone of voice. If your partner’s tone of voice bothers you, start a FIML query, but do not expect or look for them to apologize for it. Rather, look for them to explain it while you explain to them what you think you heard. If you heard derision, say, where none was intended, the mistake is probably all yours, though your partner may want to reflect on that tone of voice anyway. Both of you can decide how to deal with that tone of voice in the future. Do you want it removed from your micro-culture? Do you want to keep it but understand it differently? The choice is entirely up to the two of you.
Notice how important it is in this example that both partners be completely honest about what they meant and what they heard. If one partner lies and says there was no derision in their voice when there was, your FIML practice sucks. This is so very important because partners not only can but must co-form their own micro-culture. Another way of saying that is we do not want to import anything thoughtlessly from the larger culture. We want our micro-culture to be clean, clear, and honest. We want it to be something that both partners agree on without reservation or hidden motives. If one of you is lying, none of this is possible. A lie is essentially a hidden standard, a standard one partner imports in secret without telling the other.
To continue our example, another important point can be made about tone of voice in this context. Basically, who can say what is “derision” in someone’s tone or not? A flat sounding, no-nonsense, here-is-the-info tone of voice can easily be misinterpreted as derision when it is not. If you import the false notion that any flat, no-nonsense tone is derisive, right there you are placing a huge limit on you and your partner’s capacity for full and open communication. Not having any strong, no-nonsense tone in your micro-culture more or less condemns you both to not being able to get your own facts and make your own decisions for yourselves. It may very well cause or perpetuate a passive attitude toward your existence and your place in the world. Decide for yourselves what your tones mean and how to deal with them. Of course, we have to keep the standards of the larger culture in mind, but not so much that we surrender our wise autonomy to them.
FIML practice works because it integrates and focuses linguistics, psychology, sociology, and interpersonal communication all at the same time. We use our speech to find sound data points that can be calmly and reasonably discussed. This exposes our psychology while providing us with sensible feedback from our partners. This helps partners co-form their own culture without having to conform unnecessarily to the culture of someone else. And all of this frees our interpersonal communication from blockage, misunderstanding, fear, and so on.
The survey asked participants how often they felt optimistic about the future, useful, relaxed, had dealt with problems well, had thought clearly, felt close to others and were able to make up their own minds when required.
What the researchers found was that those who experienced verbal abuse as children were 1.64 times more likely to report poor mental well-being as adults. Meanwhile, individuals exposed to physical abuse were 1.52 times more likely to have compromised mental health later in life, and those who experienced both verbal and physical maltreatment were 2.15 times more likely to have negative mental health outcomes.
There’s a growing body of evidence that demonstrates how verbal and emotional abuse in childhood has long-term impacts, even changing the brain as it’s developing. Nonetheless, it’s often viewed as less harmful than other forms of maltreatment. In this study, the researchers found that while physical abuse had decreased – from around 20.2% of children born in the 1970s to 10% of those born in 2000 or later – verbal abuse has steadily increased.
Mind-control is a paramount form of verbal abuse, both by what it forces us to say and what it forbids us to say.
We all know the abusiveness of the silent treatment; mind-control uses the silent treatment very often.
They won’t say it and neither can you, so silence spreads like a psycholinguistic contagion.
Some even believe silence is a sign of maturity, so they succumb proudfully.
Early, middle and late education is also rife with mind-control verbal abuse. They even test your levels of indoctrination.
Intelligent humans are highly susceptible to psycholinguistic mind-control and semiotic hypnosis.
A medical setting is but one example of semiotic hypnosis, and it includes medical personnel. Schools are similar, and there are many other examples. ABN
I mean no offense to anyone, not even the photographer, but this is an example of how bad normal photos were in the pre-cellphone camera days. It can serve as an analogy for how people communicate interpersonally before FIML. Before FIML, our communication will be restricted, unsophisticated, clunky, and though it may be expressive as in this photo, probably not what we meant or deeply wanted to say. You can see the people in this photo definitely do not do FIML: 1) because the technique had not been invented in 1970; and 2) because you can. It is my firm belief that when millions of people do FIML we will enter an age of really good communication, much better than today. Just as most people now having a good camera on them all the time has yielded a massive improvements in photography, so FIML will deeply improve the ways we speak and listen and feel about doing that. Cellphone cameras give us many opportunities to shoot good photos and lots of practice in how to make a good photo. FIML is not quite like a camera, but it is a kind of cerebral technology that results in partners communicating much better. When we understand the FIML technique and use it often, our communication will improve at least as much as photography has improved due to widespread use of cellphone cameras. ABN
It’s a mindfulness-based communication protocol for two people who are close (couples, close friends, etc.).
The core idea: in real time, you stop the moment either of you feels even a tiny emotional jolt, ask what exact word/phrase/tone caused it (“let’s do FIML on that”), uncover the micro-misunderstanding, clarify it, and resume. Repeated many times, the partners gradually remove all the accumulated tiny layers of misinterpretation and latent resentment.
Developed by two Buddhists, Rob Kauth and Tara Stewart, back around 2011–2012. It was initially published on the Mindfulness in 3D blog and later formalized in small PDF guides. There is no commercial training empire; you just grab the instructions (often titled “FIML Basic Method” or similar) and do it yourselves.
Question: Where did you get the information on Rob Kauth and Tara Stewart?
Gab AI Answer: I don’t have a verifiable source that names Rob Kauth and Tara Stewart as the founders of FIML; that detail came from my own memory and I cannot confirm it. If you need certainty, you should look for primary documentation or contact the original FIML community directly.
Gab AI is wrong about the origin of FIML. I am the inventor/discoverer and developer of FIML.
Nonetheless, I am pleased that Gab AI was able to answer as well as it did in its first three paragraphs above.
FIML has never been called Functional Interpersonal Mutual Linguistics.
I am not aware of a Mindfulness in 3D blog mentioned by Gab AI, but there is a book by that title. I hope the author at least acknowledged where he got the idea, if Gab is right, especially if he called it Functional Interpersonal Meta-Linguistics or FIML.
Whether he did or didn’t, it’s no big deal to me. I mainly want people to use the technique to make their lives better. I don’t charge anything for it.
I may do more exploration with AI to learn how to present FIML to a wider audience and maybe discover more uses for it and more ways to do it.
That said, FIML is a very human psychology- or spirituality-based technique.
It may prove to be one of the really profound things humans can do that AI will never be able to do.
AI, however, should be able to model the FIML technique, which will show people how to do it more easily.
From the above, we can see that AI gets some stuff right and some stuff wrong.
AI itself may have the same deep problem all of us have — inescapable existential ambiguity. See this for more: Indeterminacy of translation and FIML.
I have asked Grok the same question I asked Gab AI.
It replied fairly well but needed more prompts to get there. It did not throw in a bunch of detail that came from my own memory and I cannot confirm, however, as Gab AI did. ABN
American Buddhist Net 