A metaphor about tracking patterns

One of the things we assume in NLP is that people are systematic in their behaviour, not random. We exhibit patterns — patterns which can be modelled, utilized, interrupted, etc.

Now, NLP offers a number of models to describe these patterns and I want to make a distinction between ways you can use them.

Imagine we were developing a model to track road driving patterns. One of the distinctions might be between fast lane driving and slow lane driving. If we notice that a driver tends to stay in the slow lane, the temptation is to use the distinction and label him a slow lane driver. Conversely, if he tends to go out to the fast lane as soon as he can and stay there, the temptation is to label him a fast lane driver. (Others might be labelled, "a bit of both".)

Now, here's the thing. While the label might provide a reasonably accurate and predictive model of how that driver will drive, there's this observation:

Even so-called slow lane drivers will go out to the fast lane sometimes.

Even so-called fast lane drivers will go in to the slow lane sometimes.

So, if you want to really model the driving patterns of a driver and replicate their driving technique, is it enough to simply notice which lane the driver dominantly drives in, or is it better to track their particular rules and criteria for changing lane?

That's how I think about NLP distinctions: that diagnosing a 'style' is not nearly as useful as tracking the dynamics of how people work.

Wishing you health and happiness,

Steve.