Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions
Posted by: Mark MacLean
Date/Time: 03/08/2004 04:41:24


Thanks for your reply. I think we've started moving in more or less the same direction, so let's continue. I apologize for "dragging my heels", if we're already in agreement about what questions do/are for, however, I see it as a excellent stepping stone to where you want to go.

You said: "I'm open to any suggestions you have."


You then said: "Questions seemed to lead to a focusing of thought do they not?  They make our minds concentrate on certain aspects of our experience? What's interesting here?"

Okay. Well that is exactly what I was getting at, and good questions. And, to answer you question about what's interesting...From my personal experience, (and what my initial reply was getting at) was that questions are, (at a fairly high logical level), about directing a person's attention. The command for one person to another might be something like: "Go (Transderivational Search), And, Recover AND/OR Generate That Information, (and then, (depending on the context) report it back to me)".

The interesting bit, is that "the context" seems to plays a huge role in what to do with that recovered/generated information. A comedian wants a laugh, a poker player wants to notice a "tell", and a gossip wants all the juicy details spilled.

This is the level I would expect/hope that most NLP Practitioners are working at. Deliberately directing their clients attention to making discoveries about their own model. (e.g. Meta Model questions) Asking specific questions designed to stimulate unconscious reactions/learning, (vs. conscious content elicitation questions).

From my experience the other two main/common reasons/intentions behind the questioning process (which seem to be at a lower logical level), and can be noticed within most day-to-day communications are:
1) To test or attempt to confirm information a person thinks they already have.
2) To get more information about where to move/go next, in terms of learning.

It seems to me that most questions fall rather comfortably into these 3 major groupings. What kind of feedback is being expected, also seems to be interesting.

Again, feedback welcome.

If this is a fairly comfortable, common ground regarding the utility of questions, than I'd be glad to move on to how these ideas might fit into "NLP New Code", and the many models discussed in Whispering.

Let me know what you think now. Again, my apologies for this long post if this is already where you're at. I'm interested in any differences you (or others may have to offer).

Mark MacLean

P.S. For the record I am eager to tease out your f2 transforms question, but this post has been long enough for now, and this seems like a logical break.

Entire Thread

TopicDate PostedPosted By
The quality of questions31/07/2004 19:24:49GSM
     Re:The quality of questions31/07/2004 22:49:25Robert Kamala
          Re:Re:The quality of questions01/08/2004 08:20:01GSM
               Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions02/08/2004 09:49:59Mark MacLean
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions02/08/2004 10:12:36GSM
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions02/08/2004 10:25:16Mark MacLean
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions02/08/2004 13:22:14GSM
                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions02/08/2004 17:25:35Mark MacLean
                                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions02/08/2004 18:21:59GSM
                                             Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions03/08/2004 04:41:24Mark MacLean
                                                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions04/08/2004 10:35:21GSM
                                                       Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions05/08/2004 08:24:11Mark MacLean
                                                            Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions05/08/2004 16:26:11GSM
                                             Re:The quality of questions04/08/2004 15:25:18Greg Alexander
                                                  Re:Re:The quality of questions04/08/2004 15:37:22GSM
                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions02/08/2004 22:28:37nj
                                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions04/08/2004 10:20:06GSM
                                             Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions04/08/2004 11:30:33nj
                                                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions04/08/2004 11:32:42GSM
                                                       Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions04/08/2004 11:54:19nj
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions02/08/2004 21:51:05John Schertzer
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions04/08/2004 10:19:18GSM
               Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions02/08/2004 09:53:15Mark MacLean
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions04/08/2004 10:25:00GSM
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions05/08/2004 10:36:03Mark MacLean
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions05/08/2004 16:42:23GSM
                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The quality of questions06/08/2004 02:54:05Mark MacLean

Forum Home