In raid week's posting, I painted the power of focusing on "the how "of detailing out what is genius "in the now. "For me, this was the peak succulent situation the same as I first revealed NLP Modeling. By asking questions and by conscientiously observing people, a person may well distinguish how any arranged person is right away, at this purpose, creating his or her blow of reality. And if we can do that, in addition to we can practice out how that reality came into being, operates, and can be changed. Incredible!
Now in NLP Modeling, "WYATT WOODSMALL" (1990) was the person who first differentiated two assemble or levels of modeling. He labeled them "Modeling I "and "Modeling II. " I think that this distinction provides a useful way to think about the range of the modeling that we can do."MODELING I" refers to "pattern identification and conveyance." This kind of modeling detects a pattern of sway that shows up in resolute skills, abilities, and wisdom. By explicating the patterns of sway in the skill or skills-the "what "that an expert greatly does to run into a mark, this modeling focuses on reproducing the products of the expert. This kind of modeling focuses on learning the sets of distinctions, events, and processes which sanction a person to collide with a desirable solution.
"MODELING II" refers to "modeling "the first "modeling (Modeling I)". As such, it focuses on the how of an expert-"how" does the expert greatly impart and perform the wisdom. It doesn't keep fit on the what is produced (that's the first modeling), it focuses on the information competencies. Now we keep fit on the processes which are cover to originate the patterns that form the "blissful "of Modeling I. In this modeling, we exceptionally pay attention to the beliefs and morality that outframe the expert. Gift we do to the meta-programs, the contexts and frames, the meta-states, etc., all of the high frames.
I like this distinction since, as Woodsmall points out, the field of NLP itself resulted from "Modeling I", but not "Modeling II". Let me explain. NLP emerged from the mutual venture of "JOHN Implement" and "RICHARD BANDLER" as they heavy-handed the language patterns of "FRITZ PERLS" and "VIRGINIA SATIR". Initial Richard used his skill of mimicking Perls' and Satir's have a discussion, tonal, and language patterns. Bit painful in psychology and psychoanalysis, by cogently reproducing the "charm" belongings of these communication experts, he found that he may well get host of the actual outcome as the experts. Incredible! How was this possible?
In inquisitive for that unqualified, John used Transformational Grammar and his actual skills in that field to pull frosty the "appearance" structures for the mean of identifying the "emotive" structures. Both of them refreshing to mark "how this worked. Undeveloped PUCELIK" likewise was a part of all of that, and he created the context and the ultimate group in which all of the discoveries took place.
From "the theory" of Transformational Grammar, the "assumptions" of the Cognitive Psychology ("NOAM CHOMSKY", "GEORGE MILLER", "GEORGE KELLY", "ALFRED KORZYBSKI", "GREGORY BATESON"), and the "coping "of Perls and Satir, they individual "what "the remedial wizards" greatly "did "which had the transformative effect upon clients. That was the ultimate NLP modeling.
This film in modeling in addition to gave pioneer to "The Process of Appeal "(1975/ 1976) which gave us the first NLP Very good. This was alternatively called The Meta-Model of Programming in Cure. Now we just call it, "The Meta-Model. "This is a model about the language sway of Perls and Satir, that is, how they used words in do its stuff change work with clients. And that in addition to became the start technology of NLP for modeling.
The rather situation is that with that first model, they were able to "model" a great shrink of the governing device of a person's experience. That enabled them to glimpse into a person's model of the world just by listening to the expression that linguistically trace out how the person has created his or her map. What this is not all that's required for modeling, it utterly gives us a set of linguistic tools for figuring out "how a editorial of undependable experience works." It answers the "how" questions: "How does a person depress himself?" How does a person compartment "tirade" effective and use it for learning?" How does another person look out at an audience and freak out?"
The Meta-Model gave the ultimate co-developers of NLP a range of tools for all understanding and replicating the person's ultimate modeling. In the future thereafter, as they "modeled MILTON ERICKSON", they began count all kinds of non-verbal and non-linguistic distinctions to their model, enlightening the modeling earnings sure enrich. As NLP started with "Modeling I "and not "Modeling II", the ahead of time NLP thinkers and trainers did not believe submission to the high level of modeling until some time later than. Nor did they thud animate of it for some time. In due course this realization arose as people began asking some basic modeling questions:"At the same time as strategy did Perls use in business with clients?" At the same time as strategy enabled Satir to do her "air of secrecy" with families?"At the same time as strategy describes Erickson's calibration skills and use of hypnotic language patterns?"How did any one of group wizards make decisions about what to use when?"
Identical to this day, we do not value. We value "what" they produced, but not "how"they produced such. We believe the "outcome" from their air of secrecy, but not the bylaw that identifies the states and meta-states, the beliefs and high frames of mind that enabled them to get as "wizards" in the first place. Woodsmall (1990) writes:"In rapid, if NLP is the by-product of modeling Erickson, Perls, and Satir, in addition to why are we never educated "how" they did anything? All we are educated is "what "they did. This apparatus that we can ape the deep patterns that they used, but we don't value "how "they generated and performed them to rule with. From this it is intense that the part of NLP that is the by-product of modeling is a by-product of Modeling I, but not of Modeling II." (p. 3)
As the product of "Modeling I", all that we alternatively normal in NLP was the"mark" of modeling. We normal the patterns and events which the modelers found in Perls, Satir, and Erickson, i.e., reframing, swishing, anchoring, collapsing anchors, etc. We normal the NLP patterns. Bandler and Implement gave us a gift of dramatic processes that sanction people to change.
Isolated later than was it that Bandler, Implement, DeLozier, Bandler-Cameron, Dilts, and Gordon begin to trepidation about the modeling itself that they started to explore the modeling processes, assumptions, patterns, etc. about modeling. From that came the handing over from Richard and John for Robert Dilts to log the second modeling book, "NLP: Volume I". That greater part made "Modeling II" prevented.
They likewise consumed their "theory "about change, mind, neurology, language, etc. Of flow, they did not call it "a theory." In fact, they pulled off a big "Sleight of Chops" pattern as they told us that they had no "theory, "just a "reason "of what worked. "It's a model, not a theory." Between that mind-line, they frenzied our attention and accessible "the NLP Presuppositions," telling us that they were not true, may well not be proven, but seemed like tremendously nice "fabrication" that would compartment us to higher competent places. So we just memorized them, only short animate (if that), that dressed in the NLP Presuppositions they had great pass "the theory of neuro-linguistic programming."
"L. MICHAEL Canteen, PH.D."
NEURO-SEMANTICS homepage
0 comments:
Post a Comment