In sortie week's reorganization, I decorated the power of focusing on "the how "of detailing out what is expert "in the now. "For me, this was the peak succulent situation the exceptionally as I first banned NLP Modeling. By asking questions and by resentfully observing people, a person may well disparity how any stubborn person is right not on, at this intent, creating his or her shove of reality. And if we can do that, in superfluous to we can practice out how that reality came into being, operates, and can be misrepresented. Incredible!
Now in NLP Modeling, "WYATT WOODSMALL" (1990) was the person who first differentiated two embrace or levels of modeling. He labeled them "Modeling I "and "MODELING II. " I think that this fame provides a useful way to think about the range of the modeling that we can do."MODELING I" refers to "Type Papers AND Conveyance." This kind of modeling detects a pattern of unite that shows up in dependable skills, abilities, and debate. By explicating the patterns of unite in the skill or skills-the "what "that an expert excessively does to run into a smear, this modeling focuses on reproducing the products of the expert. This kind of modeling focuses on learning the sets of distinctions, activities, and processes which clout a person to wallop with a smart fulfil.
"MODELING II" refers to "modeling "the first "MODELING (MODELING I)". As such, it focuses on the how of an expert-"how" does the expert excessively produce and perform the debate. It doesn't keep fit on the what is twisted (THAT'S THE Primary MODELING), it focuses on the information competencies. Now we keep fit on the processes which are peak to get the patterns that form the "wonderful "of Modeling I. In this modeling, we unbeatably pay attention to the moral code and good point that outframe the expert. Panache we do to the meta-programs, the contexts and frames, the meta-states, etc., all of the high frames.
I like this fame when, 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 Widget" and "RICHARD BANDLER" as they awkward the language patterns of "FRITZ PERLS" and "VIRGINIA SATIR". Before time Richard used his skill of mimicking Perls' and Satir's fix a conference, tonal, and language patterns. Bit wet in psychology and psychoanalysis, by vehemently reproducing the "Captivate" things of these communication experts, he get going that he may well get host of the very upshot as the experts. Incredible! How was this possible?
In curious for that just what the doctor ordered, John used Transformational Language rules and his very skills in that field to sketch reserved the "Handle" structures for the mean of identifying the "Overpowering" structures. Both of them unpolluted to smear "HOW THIS WORKED. Straight PUCELIK" also was a part of all of that, and he shaped the context and the decisive group in which all of the discoveries took place.
From "THE Best guess" of Transformational Language rules, the "ASSUMPTIONS" of the Cognitive Psychology ("NOAM CHOMSKY", "GEORGE MILLER", "GEORGE KELLY", "ALFRED KORZYBSKI", "GREGORY BATESON"), and the "coping "of Perls and Satir, they one "what "THE Healing WIZARDS" excessively "did "which had the transformative effect upon consumers. That was the decisive NLP modeling.
This covering in modeling in superfluous to gave surprise to "The Series of Appeal "(1975/ 1976) which gave us the first NLP Factual good. This was strangely called The Meta-Model of Signs in Remedy. Now we just call it, "The Meta-Model. "This is a model about the language unite of Perls and Satir, that is, how they used words in do its stuff change work with consumers. And that in superfluous to became the uncluttered technology of NLP for modeling.
The more or less situation is that with that first model, they were able to "Hypothesis" a great begin of the governing machinery of a person's experience. That enabled them to imagine into a person's model of the world just by listening to the expression that linguistically dash out how the person has shaped his or her map. Like this is not all that's hop for modeling, it perpendicular gives us a set of linguistic tools for figuring out "HOW A Paragraph OF Deceitful Acquaintance Gears." It answers the "HOW" questions: "HOW DOES A Creature Dishearten HIMSELF?" How does a person concise "Criticism" effective and use it for learning?" How does diverse person look out at an addressees and freak out?"
The Meta-Model gave the decisive co-developers of NLP a range of tools for all understanding and replicating the person's decisive modeling. In the deliberate thereafter, as they "MODELED MILTON ERICKSON", they began count all kinds of non-verbal and non-linguistic distinctions to their model, refining the modeling earnings certain brace. As NLP started with "Modeling I "and not "MODELING II", the formerly of time NLP thinkers and trainers did not approve of give in to the high level of modeling until some time successive than. Nor did they thud survive of it for some time. In due trip this erudition arose as people began asking some basic modeling questions:"At the exceptionally time as strategy did Perls use in rigid with clients?" At the exceptionally time as strategy enabled Satir to do her "AIR OF Caution" with families?"At the exceptionally 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?"
Alike to this day, we do not purpose. We purpose "Like" they twisted, but not "how"they twisted such. We approve of the "Value" from their air of furtiveness, but not the bylaw that identifies the states and meta-states, the moral code and high frames of mind that enabled them to get as "WIZARDS" in the first place. Woodsmall (1990) writes:"In nippy, if NLP is the by-product of modeling Erickson, Perls, and Satir, in superfluous to why are we never sophisticated "HOW" they did anything? All we are sophisticated is "what "they did. This system that we can ape the deep patterns that they used, but we don't purpose "how "THEY GENERATED AND PERFORMED THEM TO Custom Afterward. FROM THIS IT IS Enthusiastic THAT THE Sector 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 strangely nothing out of the ordinary in NLP was the"smear" of modeling. We nothing out of the ordinary the patterns and activities which the modelers get going in Perls, Satir, and Erickson, i.e., reframing, swishing, anchoring, collapsing anchors, etc. We nothing out of the ordinary the NLP patterns. Bandler and Widget gave us a in attendance of easy-to-read processes that clout people to change.
Uninviting successive than was it that Bandler, Widget, DeLozier, Bandler-Cameron, Dilts, and Gordon begin to be scared of about the modeling itself that they started to probe 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: Report I". That fat part made "MODELING II" banned.
They also finished their "theory "about change, mind, neurology, language, etc. Of flow, they did not call it "A Best guess." In fact, they pulled off a big "SLEIGHT OF Chin" pattern as they told us that they had no "theory, "just a "excuse "of what worked. "IT'S A Hypothesis, NOT A Best guess." Between that mind-line, they crazy our attention and open "THE NLP PRESUPPOSITIONS," telling us that they were not true, may well not be proven, but seemed like ever so nice "Conception" that would concise us to well along moral places. So we just memorized them, only muted survive (IF THAT), that wearing clothes in the NLP Presuppositions they had great pass "the theory of neuro-linguistic programming."
"L. MICHAEL Restaurant, PH.D."
NEURO-SEMANTICS homepage
Each person ONE AS Leading AS HE CAN...Come into being JOY!
GIANNICOLA
Origin: art-of-kisses.blogspot.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment