Those of you that know me are probably more than aware that John Grinder is my Obi Wan Kenobi. I would like to share this video of John with you.
If you are an involved in NLP it’s a great reminder of which part of the client we are creating rapport with and talking to. Discard the conscious narrative (with the exception of marked words) and pay attention only to the process.
If you are not familiar with NLP this will still be of value. I would love to know how you find my mentor/teacher/personal hero. Enjoy…
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Daryll,
(actually wouldn’t he be Jedi Grand Master Yoda?)
Sorry, spent most of the vid. paying attention to the audience! When finished I clicked on JG talking about modelling. Powerful, Obi Wan to us all
Interesting that he spoke about children’s ability to model complex behaviours…. MP course projects now a days seem to be to model a behaviour that occurs in a fraction of a second, chunk down! Perhaps becoming overly academic and straying away from experiential.
Cheers, Chaz.
I’m aware that there is another description of modeling offered to the NLP community. (something about talking to the model and eliciting their strategies from eye movement and predicates of speech. Would that be about right?)
I have only ever been exposed John Grinder’s description (which is the method used to assimilate the entire behaviour of Satir and Erickson. The conscious version of modeling involving strategies came along later)
In simple terms - any knowledge / opinion / or conscious observation imposes a mass of filters on the modeling experience (so only some of the model is getting through) and will prevent you from entering the deep, deep 2nd position that is real NLP modeling. As with most advanced NLP - having no idea what you are doing is an important part of the process.
Once you have captured the model (and the criteria for evaluation is very precise - getting the same results as the model within the modeled activity in the same time or less, preferably whilst you still have no idea what you are doing) then you can begin to impose some conscious awareness in order to distinguish between the elements that are part of the performance, and those which are idiosyncratic to the model and nothing to do with the activity (and you can only know this by testing - remove an identified element of the performance and see if it messes it up).
“having no idea what you are doing is an important part of the process.”
Is this where the high performance, no content state comes into play?
Cheers, Chaz.
Hi Chaz:
I would suggest that you think of it like this. If you have an idea/opinion/theory - you will be looking for evidence to support it (or not). Either way it’s a binary result - you find what you suspect (or make what you observe fit your expectations) or you don’t.
This is like scientific method - it improves and it disproves, but never really proves.
If we remind ourselves that the reason we are modeling someone is that we have no idea what they are doing, then any ideas we have in advance are nothing better than wild guesses and will simply filter the experience - and prevent us from capturing whatever the hell they are really doing.
As an aside - a coded model is the map not the territory. There is a huge difference between the slither of what was going on that is captured in The Milton Model, and the experience of watching Bandler, Grinder or Gilligan doing Erickson’s behaviour.
I would be interested to know, is this a helpful comment?
Hi Daryll,
Yes, it is a helpful comment, thank you.
I’ve found some difficulty at the ‘installation’ phase because I’m attempting to install from the ‘map’. Too much focus on getting a coded model, rather than ‘doing’ the behaviour.
Cheers,