Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Changing with New Code NLP |
Posted by: | Jon Edwards |
Date/Time: | 20/12/2002 16:05:26 |
Hi Michael and Lewis, Thanks for some fascinating insights - I'm really appreciating why John and Carmen set so much importance on the use of sensory-based description! I've been playing with various techniques to get myself to a "know-nothing" or "high-performance" state. (Unfortunately I'm working alone so I don't have the benefit of a skilled observer/coach). From a left-brained/logical standpoint, there seems to me to be some significant differences between activities like juggling, and the New Code example of the Alphabet Game. I'm wondering if you've found that these differences "make a difference" in practical application I've noticed two differences, and I wonder if anyone could offer guidance on how important those differences are - 1. A random stimulus, external to the person - in the Alphabet Game (at least on the first pass), the player does not know what letters will be linked to what moves, so there is an element of being open to, and reacting to, external events. (With activities like juggling, there will always be small variations in the trajectories of the balls, and such, but these are much more within the player's control) 2. A verbal/linguistic element - in the Alphabet Game, there is a verbal as well as a kinesthetic/movement response to each letter. I'm wondering if this is an important distinction, as it (presumably) activates the part of the brain that processes language? So, perhaps, if the "problem context" which you're aiming to affect has a linguistic element, do you get better results by using a game that involves a linguistic/verbal element? That's not to say that juggling won't be a very useful exercise, just to say that one with a verbal element will be even more useful? Hope that makes sense? Cheers, Jon |