|Topic:||Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:modeling a group|
|Posted by:||John Grinder|
"And now we consider a case of a mountain-climber... Will the mountain be the "client"?"
The mountain is the context for the challenge - the performance of the model is the reference point. Now, a word of caution in this particular field of human endeavor. I personally think that a climber who climbs for any reason other than using his or her highest grade performance as the measure of his or her achievement is missing the point. One of the beautiful things about the sport is that everyone can find their own personal limits... and exceed them. Yes, I understand about competitive climbing.
The extra comment is important as the price of making a really bad decision can be lethal.
2. You wrote,
"Sure - the situation (lack of popularity of the new code in Russia) must be changed. We'll see what can be done."
Let's us know how you want to do it. BTW, I suppose that it would be appropriate for me to mention that I am not in a popularity contest; I am however interested in creating the finest models in this field.
3. You wrote.
"As far as I know, Richard Bandler modeled Fritz Perls mainly using the transcripts of the work of the latter."
No, he and Frank Pucelik had full access to the movie and videos of Perls working as well as both edited and unedited transcripts.
4. You wrote,
"You write in the book that before you visited Milton Erickson for the first time, you've spent some time reading his books, books about him and whatever and finally were able to use his own patterns "against" him while talking on the phone with him."
You have no appreciation of Ericksonian hypnosis if you in any way believe that such patterning is used competitively. Surely, Erickson's gracious response to the induction I did with him on the phone lays to rest such nonsense.
5. You wrote,
"This has to say that Dilts' method (though it is not clear how specifically has he modeled - whether he has followed his own process as described in "Modeling with NLP" or not) is able to produce something."
Oleg - this is absurd: as I have stated multiple times on this website - of course, there are multiple valid strategies for learning. Daa!
The point is which of the methodologies on offer produced the most robust models to approach the replication of the models (the geniuses that serve as models). I point out again that the field you act as if you are part of was created by the modeling processes detailed in Whispering and patently NOT the intellectual, verbal, 3rd position, left-brained oriented, full of personal filters offered by Dilts.
Do a comparative piece of work and offer us a report.
|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|