|Topic:||Modelling - 'unconscious uptake'|
|Posted by:||Michael Carroll|
I have opened up a new thread for this topic as the title of the thread you present your question to me, is not relevant to the topic we are now discussing, i.e modelling, and more specifically modelling the swing of a golfer.
You use the nick name ‘golf swing modeler,’ I am glad you picked up my comments in my previous post because it presents an opportunity to talk about process.
Please note, I am writing this post from the perspective of near total ignorance of playing golf. I must say I am more enthused to pick up a club than I was before the exercises I am about to explain
You wrote “I know you said these modeling games don't fit John Grinder's suggestions in terms of depth, but I would also suggest that a modeling of a professional golf swing probably didn't result in any empirical results even close to those of a professional golfer. What I mean by this is that effective modeling (in my book at least) actually means you get to achieve similar results.”
If I provide you with the frame of the exercise and the process, I think it will clarify the valid comments you make.
Three people from a group of 15 participants were skilled at the following
3. Tai chi
I am not skilled at any the above, and have no way of clarifying how skilled the individuals were. They all looked elegant to me, but I was measuring something else, which I will elaborate on later.
The group split into three groups, with the following constituents
1 Model (the person skilled at the behaviour)
1 Modeller (the person who was going to model the skill)
2 people who were to act as coaches for the exercise
The set criteria was the modeller* was to have no experience (i.e never done the behaviour) of what he/she was modelling.
The frame was as follows
a. There was to be no verbal communication between the model and modeller
b. The model was to demonstrate the move/behaviour being modelled
c. The modeller was to second position the model and perform from second, and follow the coaches’ instructions
d. The coaches were to ensure there was no verbal communication between model and modeller and to coach the modeller on his/her performance
All the participants had received previous training in perceptual positions and “know nothing state” The degree of competency in second position and ‘know nothing’ was varied as in any group. I will explain the effects of the varied competency later in this post.
The frame was for the group to learn and have an experience of steps 1-3 of the modelling process as stated in Whispering. (I will add, my interpretation of steps 1-3 of the modelling process). They had about 2 hours for the exercise. The groups were told to just explore, and see what unfolds as result of the exercise. My measurement (and ultimately the groups’ measurement) was on how skilled the modeller was at the behaviour (i.e. driving a golf ball) contrasted with his/her total ignorance 2 hours previously. We later contrasted the behavioural competency of the golf modeller with people who learned the same skills using traditional learning style. There was therefore no explicit goal to achieve the same level of skill as the pro golfer in 2 hours.
The golfer modelled hitting a ball on the golf driving range
The karate person modelled a Karate move
The Tai chi person modelled a Tai chi move
Here is what happened on the golf range. Remember there was no verbal communication between model and modeller and the modeller had never hit a golf ball, prior to the exercise. I was not present during the whole exercise, as I was walking around the other groups.
If I remember correctly, the golf group chunked the work into 4 pieces.
1. Holding the club (without swinging)
2. Swinging to hit an invisible ball
3. Driving the ball (actually hitting it).
4. They added a 4th which was surprisingly important on the day and that was the walk up to the ball, and posture just before hitting and even gripping the club.
The golfer gripped his club, and stood still. The coaches felt his muscles, tension in arms and legs, and tension of grip. The model held his club and was coached how to breathe, stand, the measure of grip, muscle tension etc. The model and modeller were silent. When the coaches were satisfied that both model modeller and match in the way they were holding the club, they moved onto to the next piece which was swinging the club to hit am invisible ball. The coaches watched, and coached and so on. The final task was hitting the ball.
When I came back to golf driving range I was very surprised at how far the model who had never hit a golf ball could drive the ball(contrasted with his earlier attempts), and the elegance of his physiology. My measurement was before and after. The golf pro was equally surprised at the speed of learning. The golf pro early on the exercise was getting impatient, and wanted to move on, the coached asked him in accordance with the exercise to be quiet.
When it came to subtracting parts of the behaviour, (they moved into step 4 and 5 here) the coaches suggested leaving out the walk and breath manoeuvre before hitting the ball. This resulted in a significant reduction of competency in the modeller’s behaviour.
There was an interesting contrast in the results in the performance of the Karate group compared with Golf group. In the karate group, both model and modeller were talkers. The karate modeller did not follow the instructions to go to ‘know nothing’ and tolerate the ambiguity of not knowing, he asked questions, thus not being in a clean second. The model in turn attempted to answer the questions and was not cleanly in the position of a karate move. It took a long time and specific feedback from the coaches and me, to get both model and modeller quiet. When it came time to demonstrate the move, the modeller did NOT perform his karate move at any where near the same levels of fleuncy as the golf modeller performed the golf wing, using zero competence as first bench mark.
You wrote “What I mean by this is that effective modeling (in my book at least) actually means you get to achieve similar results. So if a professional golfer can hit a driver 350 yards, you get to do the same.”
Yes I agree. What you write is stated as step 3 of the modelling process in Whispering. Now consider this, it took Grinder and Bandler some where in the region of 9 months to complete the modelling work on Erickson (my recall from Whispering, correct me if I wrong John G.) You will also read in Whispering an unspecified number of weeks went by until Grinder had the competency on par with Pucelik and Bandler using the unconscious uptake learning of their (Bandler and Pucelik’s) unconscious uptake version of Perls. In the course I describe a process was being learned not a full on modelling project being conducted.
You wrote “The effectiveness of the modeling can only be identified in action on the golf course. I'm pretty sure no-one in your group (unless one was a pro, or close to being a pro) modeling the golf swing would have been able to replicate anything like the results achieved by a professional golf swing, I'm saying this out of experience here! Did they even demonstrate the results on the practice range? If not what were they really doing?”
Yes, we happened to have a golf course and driving range at the hotel we were working at. So no, the model did not hit the ball as far as the pro… but he did a bloody good job, what’s more the pro learned loads as well.
Step 3 of the modelling process in Whispering “specifies that the modeller will be able to reproduce the effects of the patterning Modelled from the source” I am happy, whilst we did not achieve the full criteria of step 3, the outcome was positive in the sense of the marked difference in performance in the two groups I write about in this post i.e. one group (the golfers) doing a good unconscious uptake (step 2) and the other group who did more questioning.
To summarise, the exercise was set up to learn a process. The measurement was from zero competency to X level of competency in 2 hours. The X in the golf and Tai Chi was quite a long way from zero on the beginner’s scale.
I have reported the results in this post and explained my measuring criteria. With respect to your comment “I saying this out of experience here” I invite you to explicate
a/ your experience of modelling a golf swing
b/ the process you used
c/ The results of the work and how you measured
d/ how you code the golf swing
I have shared my experience, and would dearly enjoy learning from you. This gives us an exciting opportunity to putting some real quality into this forum, by sharing processes, successes, failures etc.
P.S. To all my friends who speak and write using American English; in British English we spell the verb to model in the present participle as “modelling” I must say when I see modelling written as modeling it looks strange, so I have full empathy with you the other way around
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|Modelling - 'unconscious uptake'||16/07/2003 20:58:43||Michael Carroll|
|Re:Modelling - 'unconscious uptake'||16/07/2003 21:59:01||Golf Swing Modeler|
|Re:Re:Modelling - 'unconscious uptake'||17/07/2003 02:18:14||Michael Carroll|
|Re:Modelling - 'unconscious uptake'||17/07/2003 00:34:15||Michael Carroll|
|Modelling - 'unconscious uptake'||18/07/2003 16:25:57||jamesvanderbeet|
|Re:Modelling - 'unconscious uptake'||21/07/2003 02:41:19||Michael Carroll|
|Re:Re:Modelling - 'unconscious uptake'||22/07/2003 13:55:27||Golf Swing Modeler|
|Re:Re:Re:Modelling - 'unconscious uptake'||22/07/2003 16:30:06||Michael Carroll|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Modelling - 'unconscious uptake'||22/07/2003 16:47:40||Golf Swing Modeler|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Modelling - 'unconscious uptake'||22/07/2003 19:26:13||inthatway|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Modelling - 'unconscious uptake'||22/07/2003 20:57:55||Michael Carroll|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Modelling - 'unconscious uptake'||24/07/2003 11:55:18||Golf Swing Modeler|