Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:E-prime IS absoid - still
Posted by: Eric Robbie
Date/Time: 11/06/2004 15:38:46

Thank you Stephen Michael Hawley, for remembering SF, '92.

You asked whether it would be a good idea to teach e-prime to NLP people – well, clearly, I think not. But to respond to your question in another way:

The real Q would be – what for? To use the traditional NLP phrase, what would be your outcome? What would you want such teaching to do?

Let’s assume that, in the spirit of ‘main-line’ NLP and of this Whispering site, two common aims for would-be NeLPers would be to: (a) teach people how to better gather info about other’s model of the world, and (b) give people the means to be more flexible in, and to choose more freely among, their own models, plural, of the world. Yes?

OK, then adding to people’s workload by giving them extra and harder stuff to do - such as jumping through the absurd mental hoops that using e-prime usually means - is not, IMHO, a good way to do either of the above.

If you are gathering info about another’s MotW, then forcing the other person to use e-prime would not, as far I can see, help you get high-quality stuff. And if you, the info-gatherer/model-maker, are ‘forcing’ everything to be ‘less permanent’ and ‘less rigid’ - on e-prime principle - you’d be contaminating the results, never mind what it would do the rapport.

And there is a better way. You may know that a few years back I discovered Sub-Modality Eye-Accessing Cues (SMEACs) – that I can teach you how to read up to eight or nine visual sub-modalities and at the same time up to six or seven auditory sub-modalities - all in one half second - all from the outside.

The process of installing this ability takes about four hours, and works with 90 per cent of the people I’ve taught – the 10 per cent who it don’t work with, it’s because they won’t give up their essentially digital (ie second attention) way of dealing with the world.

Now, the point of me making that blatant plug is this: one way you can tell – from the outside - whether any given use of the verb IS is rigid is by noticing if the picture accompanying the use of the verb is still or moving, or not. And that’s only one clue to the ‘degree of permanence'.  There are quite a few others, too – and, I maintain, (and I haven’t said too much about this in print before) you can tell the degree of permanence or deeply-heldness of most beliefs – their IS-ness – from some other outside clues.

So with that possible, why bother to do it a clumsy way? Put the subject of your modelling through them clumsy linguistic hoops?

As to what the use of e-prime might mean for one’s self having more choices in one’s own models of the world – well, there are better ways to do that too.

It’s kinda like when I used to teach young journalists – I always wanted to tell them “Beware of ‘low-level’ rules – they won’t make you a better writer. They’ll just jam you up with a poor idea of how to get stuff that’s good.”

An example of a low-level rule is when a desk editor tells a young journalist: “There’s too many ‘I’s in your piece – ‘I got up, then I had some breakfast, then I …’ – you gotta take them out – you gotta make it better than this.”

What he’s trying to do is to get the person to write more creatively, more adventurously - and he’s write to do so – but the way to do it isn’t to impose low-level, ‘stop-doing-that’ rules. The way to do it is introduce much larger-level, generative rules.

(And yes I know that some imposers of e-prime claim to have produced better writing in their students, but I think that was in spite of the restriction, not because of it.)

Point is, when someone is a much better writer anyway, and understands in high-level ways what good writing is – like Robert Anton Wilson,say, surely IS - they can, if they so wish, write a piece that is shorn of all the IS’s – and they can do it well – like Robert Anton Wilson has done – but it’s not because they followed low-level rules.

High-level rules usually mean choice; low-level rules usually mean restriction.

In other words, if you want people to be better at making models of the world – for example, in exploring the gap between first attention and second attention, or how many more distinctions than you though possible can you make about the world? - then don’t hamstring them with low-level rules.

Eric Robbie.

Entire Thread

TopicDate PostedPosted By
Applications: E-Prime27/12/2002 23:30:59Stephen
     Re:Applications: E-Prime28/12/2002 02:18:55John Grinder
          Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime28/12/2002 04:12:06Stephen
               Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime29/05/2004 13:36:39Richard
          Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime 22:33:21e_lie
          Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime04/06/2004 23:13:08e_lie
               Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime04/06/2004 23:32:21nj
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime05/06/2004 07:50:43e_lie
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime05/06/2004 07:50:44e_lie
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime07/06/2004 04:37:28nj
                              Re:Applications: E-Prime07/06/2004 05:48:18Greg Alexander
                                   Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime07/06/2004 08:51:21e_lie
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime07/06/2004 08:57:41e_lie
     Re:Applications: E-Prime29/05/2004 13:08:22e_lie
          Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime29/05/2004 21:54:14stephen
               Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime30/05/2004 02:15:51e_lie
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime30/05/2004 13:31:05That Stephen
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime30/05/2004 23:47:17e_lie
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime31/05/2004 01:25:13Stephen Michael Hawley
                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime31/05/2004 12:04:32e_lie
                                        Re:Applications: E-Prime31/05/2004 14:45:51Greg Alexander
                                             Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime01/06/2004 03:03:37e_lie
                                                  Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime01/06/2004 08:16:11Stephen Michael Hawley
                                                       Re:Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime01/06/2004 10:37:16e_lie
                                                            Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime03/06/2004 18:10:35Stephen Michael Hawley
                                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime31/05/2004 20:08:20Stephen Michael Hawley
                                   Re:Applications: E-Prime31/05/2004 23:55:29Greg Alexander
               Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime30/05/2004 14:31:51Richard
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime30/05/2004 14:56:56Stephen Michael Hawley
     Re:Applications: E-Prime04/06/2004 11:58:43Eric Robbie
          Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime04/06/2004 13:46:27e_lie
               Re:Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime04/06/2004 14:16:33John Schertzer
               Re:Applications: E-Prime06/06/2004 13:47:13Greg Alexander
                    Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime07/06/2004 02:50:36e_lie
                         Re:Applications: E-Prime07/06/2004 04:51:17Greg Alexander
                              Re:Re:Applications: E-Prime07/06/2004 09:54:49e_lie
               Re:Re:Re:E-prime IS absoid.07/06/2004 11:55:04Eric Robbie
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:E-prime IS absoid.07/06/2004 20:11:04Stephen Michael Hawley
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:E-prime IS absoid - still11/06/2004 15:38:46Eric Robbie
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:E-prime IS absoid.08/06/2004 01:18:38e_lie

Forum Home