Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - |
Posted by: | Robert |
Date/Time: | 04/06/2003 09:25:36 |
"Yeh I can appreciate that, I prefer the scientific research because then we know what we are dealing with. I find the scientific method a more solid epistemology for determining the validity of a given model. Subjective experiences can be clouded with too many other factors, placebo, interferance from wanting the model to work etc... how do you remain objective when testing the model of the "unconscious" on yourself. How would you accurately distinguish between the terms "conscious" and "unconscious" in yourself, and more prevent your mind from intering with the process. It just seems to be too muddled for providing sound and clear feedback. How do you know when the model hasn't been used optimally, how do you know when it has when you test it on yourself. With the subjective approach I see a whole host of problems that you wouldn't get from a scientific study." Unconsious signals for example are internal signals which you do not consiously can make. However with training that also becomes avaible to the consious mind to produce. So what is the unconsious mind? a variable to have when doing things. In essence we seems to have a system of making things automatic with little thinking it just functions. In that there is many aspects, biological, neurological, lingvistical and other transforms. what is the matrix? It has been around you for ages. The difference with NLP testing is that we find what does not working with the model or pattern. The edge if you like. Then it is a matter of comparision and testing to draw forth what is needed to produce the end result. A pattern or a model. You are working from the old western sciencetific thinking of being objective and tough luck there is none in NLP. Your frame of reference from objective science thinking is faulty since it always includes someone who observe and also then seems to influence... We work with subjectivly and that also includes placebo and other realted phenomena. Thats also why NLP works as it does. By being scientific of producing the patterns which today is spread all over the earth. |
Topic | Date Posted | Posted By |
Question to John Grinder - | 27/05/2003 19:07:59 | Golf Swing Modeler |
Re:Question to John Grinder - | 27/05/2003 19:57:35 | John Grinder |
Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 28/05/2003 10:04:10 | Golf Swing Modeler |
Re:Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 28/05/2003 16:01:54 | John Grinder |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 28/05/2003 17:03:24 | Golf Swing Modeler |
Re:Question to John Grinder - | 29/05/2003 16:37:50 | Ryan Nagy |
Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 30/05/2003 09:33:21 | Golf Swing Modeler |
Re:Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 30/05/2003 11:47:32 | Lee |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 30/05/2003 11:55:02 | Golf Swing Modeler |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 30/05/2003 12:22:19 | Lewis Walker |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 30/05/2003 13:09:24 | Golf Swing Modeler |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 30/05/2003 16:32:10 | Lewis Walker |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 30/05/2003 17:00:35 | Golf Swing Modeler |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 30/05/2003 17:02:57 | John Schertzer |
Re:Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 04/06/2003 09:25:36 | Robert |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 04/06/2003 23:01:47 | Golf Swing Modeler |
Re:Question to John Grinder - | 30/05/2003 11:20:06 | Lee |
Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 30/05/2003 12:12:28 | Golf Swing Modeler |
Re:Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 30/05/2003 12:16:40 | Lewis Walker |
Re:Question to John Grinder - | 30/05/2003 13:53:44 | John Schertzer |
Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 30/05/2003 15:38:54 | Golf Swing Modeler |
Re:Question to John Grinder - | 30/05/2003 13:54:21 | John Schertzer |
Re:Question to John Grinder - | 02/06/2003 04:31:07 | Ryan Nagy |
Re:Re:Question to John Grinder - | 02/06/2003 09:37:53 | Golf Swing Modeler |