|Topic:||Re:Re:modeling a group|
|Posted by:||oleg dashevskii|
1. You wrote, "(remember my comment in another thread that the modeling as defined
in Whispering is NOT the exclusive learning strategy, it just happens to define
modeling ala NLP - as we suggest)"
Now I got it. I've taken your modeling steps too seriously :-), having missed the
point that it's just definition (and certainly a way to drive for).
2. You state, "I would say that there is grave methodological problems modeling
from 3rd - modeling from 3rd implies a full set of f2 mappings and the
methodological problem is that such a modeler is not model the model but in
significant part him or herself..."
Well yes, I fully understand your arguments and agree with them. The reason of
my mentioning modeling from 3rd is just because other people (I mean the school
of Robert Dilts) are doing so. And this is also the approach I was taught at the
Master-Practitioner course. Your paradigm is still new for me... but it seems
By the way, have you heard of any response to your book from Robert Dilts'
side? I would be eager to see his opinion, especially about the issue with
(neuro)logical levels (even more eager if his answer would be as funny as
Michael Hall's ones have been
Apropos, how do you evaluate his (Dilts') contribution to the modeling as in
NLP? In his book, "Modeling with NLP", he develops some concrete strategies,
mostly verbal though, using 3rd position...
Before I read your book I thought that both 2nd and 3rd are appropriate and
useful and that the decision whether to hang more in the 2nd or in the 3rd
should be made ad hoc... And I still can't decide which approach (your 5-phase
one or the Dilts' one) is generally more useful.
3. These were my words: "By the way, in the description, how should one attest
that he's OK with unconscious uptake you mention some clients. I think the
description should be refined because in many activities there's just no clients
involved. Who would be the client if we modeled a tennis player?"
You answered, "In the case of a champion tennis player, the clients would be
aspiring tennis players who either wish to be competitive at this high level of
performance or any tennis player who wished to significantly improve their game.
I honestly couldn't understand the first portion of your statement in this
Quoting from the book (page 350, line 5), "...More specifically, the modeler
demonstrates the ability to secure the same class of quality responses from
clients that the model typically does in approximately the same time frame".
Here we can see a presupposition that there are some clients which the model
receives responses from. In aforementioned case of a tennis player there are
The preceding sentence in the book, "More specifically, the performance criteria
will be satisfied if and only if the modeler is able to reproduce the effects of
the patterning modeled from the source.", still sounds good.
4. You write, "Content models require a certain acceptance of beliefs, values
and presuppositions - none of which are required in the operational application
of a formal model. This is also, of course, the basis of the critique that
Carmen and I offer of the so-called presuppositions of NLP."
As for presuppositions, let us consider the following case. Take a formal
(and even most formal of all formal models) model which enables us to do X. Take
a human being which has a limiting belief that X is impossible. How is he/she
going to use the model? I would say that every model has an implicit
presupposition that "X is possible", where X denotes the essence of the model.
And there can be more complicated issues. For example, let X involve Y and Y
involve Z. Now our person desires to learn X but, in turn, believes that Z is,
You state, "Leaving aside the important question of ethics, it seems very clear
to me that NLP has spread like wildfire for the simple reason it works across
languages, cultures, personal histories... precisely because it has no content -
yet handles any content - this is the value of the syntactic or formal
Here I would like to share some of my speculations with you. Let us take the
classic NLP anchoring format with client's conscious identification of the desired
state (resources, ...) But this identification is already content - and not a form!
One can argue here (after all, you state in the book that the form/content
distinction is still pretty empirical), but if we consider the new code change
format for comparison purposes, there's no content there at all.
We can say that classic code formats are not really formal, but "polluted" with
content (as well as characterlogical adjectives?)
This "pollution" has one rather important implication - it gives NLP agents of
change an illusion of control. For example, you ask the client about what he
lacks in the situation of question. He answers, "Confidence" and before you
request him/her to enter the corresponding resourceful situation you already
have some expectations of how it might be (people use to take more upright poses
when they are condifent etc.), don't you? Apparently, "confidence" (or what) is
not really content but, strictly speaking, it is not a form anyway.
The advantage of the "content pollution" is that we can utilize some portions of
our general "community map". Sometimes it is just useful (and "map is not a
territory" is only to remind us of the fact that these two can differ but not
that they always differ).
New Code approach takes away this "sometimes useful" degree of control and some
people really miss it, heh. To say, the New Code is not that popular here, in
Thank you for your answers,
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|modeling a group||06/02/2003 09:14:40||oleg dashevskii|
|Re:modeling a group||06/02/2003 22:23:02||John Grinder|
|Re:Re:modeling a group||07/02/2003 19:12:07||oleg dashevskii|
|Re:Re:Re:modeling a group||07/02/2003 21:57:22||John Grinder|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:modeling a group||18/02/2003 07:07:47||oleg dashevskii|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:modeling a group||19/02/2003 03:43:56||John Grinder|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:modeling a group||19/02/2003 07:34:46||oleg dashevskii|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:modeling a group||19/02/2003 09:38:46||Jon Edwards|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:modeling a group||19/02/2003 16:52:58||John Grinder|
|Re:Re:modeling a group||08/02/2003 20:56:47||Robert|
|Re:Re:Re:modeling a group||09/02/2003 15:55:48||John Grinder|