|Topic:||Re:Re:Re:modeling a group|
|Posted by:||John Grinder|
Thanks for another interesting posting!
1. You wrote,
"...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
Pity - this approaches the fraulent. If NLP loses the distinction we are discussing, it simply becomes another analytic endeavor with all the attendant disadvantages of the modeler imposing all of his or her own f2 mappings on the behavior of the model with the result that the so-called model is a strange mixture of the modeler's f2 categores and mental maps and whatever from the model's behavior is congruent with these filters - the data set is restricted in the extreme compared to the data set achieved by an unconscious uptake of the patterning with all f2 mappings suspended. Further there is no principled strategy known to me to sort out which portions of the resultant "model" belong to the model (the person serving as the putative source of the patterning) and which portions belong to the modeler's imposition of their own personal f2 mappings. How is this difficult from academic modeling?
I am making these remarks in the context in which there is full recognition that NLP modeling is one of a set of strategies for learning. It happens to be the strategy that developed the models that created the field called NLP. If we accept the same term (NLP modeling) for, say, Dilts' 3rd position, left brain, full on f2 mapping activated, the critical distinction is lost. I suggest that it would be prudent to make the distinction between NLP modeling - the Whispering model - and other (perfectly valid) forms of attempting to capture the patterning of high performers in order to perserve the distinction. Carmen and I have offered a series of arguments for the advantage of what we defined as NLP modeling in Whispering - the readers can review these at their leisure in Whispering.
2. You asked,
"By the way, have you heard of any response to your book from Robert Dilts' side?"
3. You wrote,
"Apropos, how do you evaluate his (Dilts') contribution to the modeling as in
Irrelevant to the process of NLP modeling (Whispering) and perfectly interesting to anyone wishing to do academic modeling as Dilts does.
4. You wrote,
" And I still can't decide which approach (your 5-phase one or the Dilts' one) is generally more useful.
Fine, take a long look at the presentation in Whispering and then do matched modeling projects: one using the NLP modeling process defined in Whispering and one using whatever we call Dilts' technique and let us all know what your experience tells you after you have the comparative experiences.
5. You wrote,
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
Ahh, thank you for the clarification - I've got it know. The "client" that serves (no pun intended) as the test of your ability to reproduced the effects in the world elicited by your model through your own imitative behavior is the same opponents that your model plays against. That is, criterion is your ability to play against such opponents at the same level of quality as your original model.
6. You raised a tangential issue - what if the formal model coded contains a piece of behavior that the learner believes that they are NOT capable of producing - what then" My suggestion is that the learner change states to something approaching a know-nothing state and simply do it. In such a state (know-nothing), the learner, having suspended f2 mappings (thus, including beliefs) will simply not know that they believe that they are incapable of that behavior. By the time they recover their f2 mappings, they will not already do the behavior and their beliefs will shift to achieve congruency with their actual behavior. I recommend reading the example of Belief System change (presented in Whispering)as an alternative way of handling such a situation.
7. You wrote,
"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!"
Well, one of the key points in Whispering is the critique of the classic code and the monumental error by Grinder and Bandler of assigning the responsibility for the selection of the desired state to the conscious mind. So, I take it that we agree on this point. Now whether it is a violation of the form/content distinction or not, it is simply ineffective compared with the re-assignment proposed in Whispering of such decisions to the unconscious.
My hesitation to endorse your form/content comment is the following: the pattern (classic code anchoring format) itself simply allows the client to select their own nominalization (the content of the change does, in fact, belong to the client). As the agent of change (ideally) makes absolutely no effort to understand or explore such nominalizations, I perceive no content from position of the agent of change and equally no content involvement in the actual format - which simply accepts whatever nominalization the client selects. You can, of course, strengthen the likelihood that the agent will not dabble in content by insisting that the client not reveal the content selected.
8. You wrote,
"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 "
I think that the use of code words (secret therapy in which the client never reveals the content of what he or she is working but offers only code words for it easily resolves this difference and the pollution doesn't occur. I am not convinced that such "pollution", if permitted by the revelation by the client of the content to the agent of change, ever serves a positive purpose.
9. You wrote,
"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 Russia."
Control, as we agree in Whispering is an illusion limited to the folly of the conscious mind. There are wanna be NLP agent of change who will cling forever to such as illusion - they should avoid at all costs any attempts at NLP modeling with its inherent demands for the full acceptance of vagueness and ambiguity and may I suggest, that they stop pretending to do NLP. Do what you like but don't pretent it is something it is not.
Pity that the New Code is not popular in Russia - could that be a function of the quality and depth with which it is NOT being presented?
All the best,
|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|