Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:The genetics analogy. topic: Solutions to Puzzles/Recommendations
Posted by: Rob Manson
Date/Time: 22/01/2003 07:39:41

Hey nj,

You wrote

... a massive number of interpretations which ...

which I interpret as

... you exhibiting a very generative "options for interpreting" model 8)

nj wrote:
Which populations would NLP researchers analyze?

Well this depends upon the traits/consequences the researchers are interested in...and could be defined as part of the initial research phase...

nj wrote:
And how would NLP researchers analyze a population?

This also depends upon the trait.  If spelling excellence were the trait then an easy source for this type of research information and access to a pre-defined population would be local or national spelling contests.  This info doesn't say what models the best spellers use...just that they are the best spellers with that population.

If you need more examples to generalise this then let me know...

BTW: If the researchers are actually trying to find some ethereal state that is hard to observe externally then this is a different matter...and from my experience this type of research is usually driven by the existence of an exceptional model in the first place.

I wrote:
"NLP modeling seems to have been intimately linked to the Application of 'change work' (another good reason for Whispering's cleaning up)."

Which seemed to have elicited an interesting trance for you 8)

Amongst other things nj wrote:
(d) "NLP Modeling appears to have been intimately linked to application of therapeutic processes by people who did both.  Therefore it's good that 'Whispering In The Wind' discusses how therapeutic processes are not intimately linked to NLP Modeling."
I won't list several more products of my interpreting your statement.


The closest to my intention was (d)...but here's some additions for you to re-interpret...

From my experience, NLP Modelling frequently appears to have been intimately linked to application of therapeutic processes by people who did both but may have had difficulty making a distinction between the two.  Many people I have met that practice NLP and many articles/books I have read on the topic seem to have turned this potentially intimate link into a strong and unstated presupposition.

I believe that 'Whispering In The Wind' discusses how therapeutic processes are not necessarily intimately linked to NLP Modelling and may help NLP practitioners develop more flexibility and choices in terms of how they utilise and describe NLP.

nj wrote:
1. What did you mean by the term 'change work', and your quoting of it?

I meant the pre-occupation I have noticed within NLP practitioners I have met that use NLP technologies to change "undesirable states" into "desirable states" (their language not mine).

For example I'm also interested in understanding how Models are utilised within other people without "necessarily" changing those models or installing them in other people (or myself).

I think that Change focused Applications are useful...but not the ONLY Application of NLP technologies.  I'm interested in a broad comparison of models to gain a deeper insight into modelling well as the broader issues related to ecology...

2. How do you think change work is applied?
3. How is what others term 'change work' applied? 

If you are questioning my conjoined use of "Application" and "change work" then that was an intentional overlap.  If these questions have a different meaning could you please expand my interpretation.

nj wrote:
4. How specifically is NLP Modeling linked to application of what you refered to by quoting the term 'change work'? 

From my experience it appears that most NLP modelling I have been exposed to has been driven by the pre-supposition I described above.  Even the modelling of excellence seems to be driven by the goal to install that model in people that are exhibiting less than excellent results to change them.

I think this is a very useful Application, however I am for example also interested in how exploration of my own models can improve my knowledge of myself...without necessarily aiming to change them.  This new information/knowledge could be described as changing myself too...but I believe it is a completely different level of change...and the initial tangent for the process is very different.  Since we are defnly a dynamical system then this can make a significant impact.

For me this is simply part of the ongoing process of building rapport with my unconscious mind...and my unconscious mind is complaining loudly about how conscious minds insist on setting an unstated goal to change it before really getting to know what's going on.  Not just in a standard ecology sort of context...but in a more general way...

In general my unconscious mind is happy to invisibly handle questions of ecology as in many NLP Applications...but it also wants conscious minds to take more time to explore what it's really doing...if you don't think this process is useful for you or others then feel free to focus on Change based Applications.

nj wrote:
5. What is cleaned up by the writing in the book "Whispering In The Wind' and then how specifically does that cleaning up take place?

I think the terminology/definitions and the overall epistemology presented in Whispering are much "cleaner" and more "precise" than in previous NLP texts I've read.

What do you think of Bostic/Grinder's refined terminology and epistemology?

nj wrote:
If any of my listed interpretations of your quoted statement read like what you meant to write

The first version actually read like I "meant to write"...but I'm happy to provide more information...

nj wrote:
Can you supply me your thoughts about the relationship between some kind of change work and what is termed "NLP Application" by Dr. Grinder & Ms. Bostic Clair?

I think Bostic/Grinder are pretty clear in para 2 of p50 of Whispering and then go on to use the analogy of Theoretical vs Applied sciences.

However, from my experience Applied sciences can be purely generative or explorative without requiring the presupposition I have discussed above.

I also have a little problem with the Modelling, Design and Application chunking based on my software development background.

While UML is methodolgy independant, all of the process stages can be defined as Modelling (e.g. working with models) and then the individual stages have been described by some methodologies as Analysis, Design, Implementation and Deployment.

I think this terminology could add to Bostic/Grinders distinctions.

Analysis       = what they call Modelling
Design         = what they call Design
Implementation = the final packaging of the model for replication (training and support materials and specific Applications etc)
Deployment     = when the Model is actually distributed and installed across a specific population

But I'll stick to Bostic/Grinder's distinctions (for the moment)...


Entire Thread

TopicDate PostedPosted By
NLP & statistics02/01/2003 10:42:12Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
     Re:NLP & statistics02/01/2003 11:27:47Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
          Re:Re:NLP & statistics04/01/2003 08:44:24Bruce
               Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics04/01/2003 11:23:38Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
     Re:NLP & statistics04/01/2003 18:33:09Bruce
     Re:NLP & statistics05/01/2003 17:23:40John Grinder
          Re:Re:NLP & statistics06/01/2003 07:47:18Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
               Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics17/01/2003 19:46:21John Grinder
               NLP & statistics18/01/2003 00:16:31suzyhomemaker
                    Re:NLP & statistics18/01/2003 04:03:44John Grinder
                         Re:Re:NLP & statistics18/01/2003 23:03:27Robert
                    Re:NLP & statistics09/02/2003 12:10:24Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
               27/02/2003 02:28:33Ryan Nagy
               NLP/statistics/dynamic systems27/02/2003 02:33:32Ryan Nagy
                    Re:NLP/statistics/dynamic systems03/03/2003 06:53:34Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (
                         Re:Re:NLP/statistics/dynamic systems04/03/2003 17:45:19Ryan Nagy
                         Re:Re:NLP/statistics/dynamic systems04/03/2003 22:09:54John Grinder
          A statistical model of elegance and diffusion21/01/2003 03:19:20Rob Manson
               Re:A statistical model of elegance and diffusion21/01/2003 04:16:48John Grinder
                    Re:Re:A statistical model of elegance and diffusion21/01/2003 10:55:06Rob Manson
                         Re:Re:Re:A statistical model of elegance and diffusion21/01/2003 17:22:38John Grinder
                    The genetics analogy21/01/2003 11:54:19Rob Manson
                         Re:The genetics analogy22/01/2003 04:27:46John Grinder
                              Re:Re:The genetics analogy22/01/2003 05:35:59Rob Manson
                         Re:The genetics analogy22/01/2003 04:27:48John Grinder
                         Re:The genetics analogy22/01/2003 04:27:53John Grinder
                         Re:The genetics analogy. topic: Solutions to Puzzles/Recommendations22/01/2003 05:53:24nj
                              Re:Re:The genetics analogy. topic: Solutions to Puzzles/Recommendations22/01/2003 07:39:41Rob Manson
                                   Re:Re:Re:The genetics analogy. topic: Solutions to Puzzles/Recommendations22/01/2003 17:24:09John Grinder
                                        Re:Modelling vs Analysis22/01/2003 23:16:12Rob Manson
                    The genetics analogy21/01/2003 11:55:16Rob Manson
     Re:NLP & statistics24/01/2003 06:49:17Mike
          Re:Re:NLP & statistics24/01/2003 16:39:35John Grinder
               Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics24/01/2003 17:25:03Mike
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics24/01/2003 18:26:08John Grinder
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics28/01/2003 20:04:54Mike

Forum Home