NLP Academy

Here’s a counterexample to Dr. Grinder’s proposal that eliciting cause-effect beliefs is antithetical to modeling a genius

03-09-2010T08:18:04+00:00

Hi,

if I were to address Dr. Grinder with my counterexample, it would follow:

“Hello, Dr. Grinder.

Have you considered whether behaviors whose consequences can not be modeled as part of imitation require elicitation of the beliefs that describe what consequences might occur?”

Any genius behavior where the genius experiences apparently arbitrary responses to the same behavior is an example.

Dr. Grinder’s reply might include mention of a point he raised in his video this month, namely, that verbal elicitation of the genius’s behavior would leave knowledge gaps that require direct observation to close. That observation, joined with imitation, would yield sufficient knowledge for the modeler to decide, as the genius does, how to respond when the consequences are not determinable from sensory information available during the genius’s performance (the time of imitation). In this case, the observation would turn to other parts of the behavior or other circumstances in the environment. Finding differences in the behavior or the environment would let you gather (hopefully) the same information as the genius during the genius performance.

Allow me to add that Dr. Grinder and Ms. Bostic St. Clair once mentioned the black-box model of system’s theory in WITW. If you know what inputs a black box gets, you can only know (and then only in principle) what it will do by watching it happen in response to its inputs. A kicked dog makes a good black box, but so do stroked dogs. A white box, by contrast, lets you know in advance what the box will do in response to particular inputs, without you having to learn it by direct observation or experience of the white box performance.

So the question for modelers is whether genius behavior is a white box or black box, and if it is a black box, how many output behaviors are important to learn? And how do you know that? Do you decide based on the outputs you care about, the inputs, or their perceived consequences? Dr. Grinder’s interaction example between two “living systems” is ironic, it seems to contradict the idea that the response of one living system to another can be determined based on past experience. The contradiction means that it is impossible to select a genius based on their consistent results interacting with living systems, so forget about imitating genius communication behaviors. Hm. Or are people more like soccer balls? Annoying orange has an answer for you on youtube.

If you observe human behavior as a white box, deciding whether humans provide sensory evidence of their internal computations, you can find behavior to model that (all other things equal) distinguishes, in its performance, the results that the performance brings about. Otherwise, you’re confronted with ambiguous behavior from the genius. Maybe while performing it you “learn from experience”, in particular, by making distinctions that the genius does not demonstrate in your imitation of their behavior, allowing you to perform different behaviors with different consequences, giving you a choice of consequences of your behavior, while you attempt to replicate the genius’s results. That’s another way into adopting the computations the genius performs, without having to literally observe the genius perform the computations in the precise situation in which you perform your genius imitation. Instead, you just develop a functional equivalent of the genius’s behavior, without acknowledging it consciously or reducing your flexibility (or imitation) with your expectations getting in the way. Heh, you wouldn’t want that happening during all those failures, to imitate.

-Noah

New Code Ball Games for Kids

01-07-2010T13:56:55+00:00

A few months ago I was at a family dinner party, well extended family actually. I was at the home of my ex-sister in law Judy (not real names) and her new husband Dave. They have a daughter Evelyn approx. nine years old.

Judy was telling me how Dave found it frustrating when he helped Evelyn with her homework and the exchange between Dad and daughter would often result in an argument and sometimes tears.

I asked Judy whether I could play a game with Evelyn and demonstrate how the game can help (I was thinking of the New Code Croydon ball game). Mom Judy said “sure”.

Evelyn was an eager player and her and I played for a few minutes and then I started to ‘chat’ with her about certain aspects of doing homework, where does she do her homework ie. what part of the house, on a table? the floor?, does she listen to music while doing homework or any other sounds, tv, etc, I couldn’t come up with a question for the visual as I already know what her Dad looks like so we just played the game a few more minutes and ended it on a high note.

I’ll be seeing the family today (it’s Canada Day and we’re having a party!) and I’m going to ask how the homework has been going. If I calibrate that doing homework is still frustrating, then I’d like to try another game. ie. Alphabet or ?? Although being that I am hosting the party that might not be easy to do as I may be busy with ‘host’ duties.

Can any group members suggest another game using tennis balls?
NB. Evelyn might be the only child here so the game needs to be suitable for her to play with adults. Any suggestions??

Cheers,
Jacquie

the new code change format revisited

21-09-2009T23:53:30+00:00

Hello everyone.

One of the properties of the New Code change format is striking when one puts it together with the insistence on addressing tasks to the unconscious mind, which is so prominent in the New Code. The context which is going to be affected by New Code game is within the classical New Code change format chosen consciously, though. That seems to speak a bit against the spirit of the New Code.
The question sounds: is the dominance of the conscious mind in choosing what to improve anyhow avoidable by any change in the change format itself? I think there is at least one possible solution to it.
The change format uses the contrast principle by allowing the client to experience the difference between associated position before and after playing the game. The position which is NOT affected by the game is the choosing meta-position. Why?
The “why” question above is not rhetorical. I am really curious what kind of advantage the exclusion of that position from influencing it by the New Code game might bring in comparison with the other option.
Let us theoretically consider what would happen if, instead of letting the client step into the position associated with previously chosen context, we directed her/him into the original choosing meta-position?
As a natural consequence it follows that we should ask the client to choose the context awaiting improvement again - that question is the anchor itself, reinforcing the spatial one (the same with asking about the place where s/he is going to put the created image). Only then we would ask the client to step into the associated position in the context, which could be either the same or new, in the same or new space.
What seems to be quite obvious is that the second choice would be made in the high performance state. We would influence the process of choosing what to improve, and of finding the representation for it, too. The question is: to which extent the high performance state would still do its job in the final step? Answering this question empirically is crucial: if it did, the client would be able to do several improvements in different context after the session, without the necessity of playing the game again.
So far my reasoning is purely theoretical. I would appreciate any feedback

dymitr

Epistemology: Feed Forward and Feed Back Loops

27-06-2010T17:12:12+00:00

There are many lively discussions currently going on regarding what occurs epistemologically when the NCCF is vs. is not followed according to the four steps as listed in the book Whispering in The Wind pg 240.

As a NC Trainer, my intention is to teach precise methodology (as a starting point) to my students. Once I calibrate my students understand and can demonstrate they know how to apply the basics I like to introduce challenges and or invite them to experiment. Before I venture into new terrain, for ecological purposes, I seek to improve my understanding of what I propose to my students.

For this stated purpose I am seeking *esoteric (not eclectic) feedback from others using NC for self application and with clients to help unpack a **concise linguistic description for what occurs in the epistemological cycle when the following situation occurs at step 3:

1. The coach guides client through the NCCF (WITW pg 240)

2. After step 4 is complete the coach calibrates the client has integrated the HPS into the context

3. *** The Coach initiates a verbal discussion about what the client is feeling.

As a starting point, I share my thoughts on several possible epistemological descriptions as follows:

For the client to describe how they feel, the client will consciously either:

1. Access newly created FA representation (the HPS)
2. Feed forward through f2 transforms/filters
3. Create linguistic representation
4. Offer verbal description
or

1. Access existing f2 representations
2. Loop back to FA to access newly created FA representation (the HPS)
3. Loop forward to f2 and feed forward through f2 transforms/filters
4. Create linguistic representation
5. Offer verbal description

1. Access existing f2 representations
2. Loop back to FA to access newly created FA representation (the HPS)
3. Loop forward to f2 and search for old context
4. Create a new imaginary context with HPS added in
5. Feed forward through f2 transforms/filters, add in existing memories/ filters
6. Do a contrastive analysis at f2 between original context and new imaginary context
7. Create linguistic representation
8. Offer verbal description

If you choose to respond with comments, it would be helpful to use a similar bullet point method.
My desire is that collectively we produce an acceptable description of the feed forward/feed back loop cycle or set of cycles that could be occurring.

..........

*A discussion with focus on the specific area of epistemology as it relates to both feed forward and feed back loops.

**I do not have the expertise or equipment to non-linguistically communicate what is occurring inside my body/mind to another person to ‘show’ them what I mean. Therefore, I am seeking as best a linguistic description as is possible at this time (I’m sure a current linguistic description will change as the field of Neurology grows at the speed it is currently).

***I am not proposing coaches/trainers have a verbal discussion with their client at this stage of the NCCF. I want to explore what could be occurring within the epistemological cycle IF a coach did initiate a verbal discussion.

Cheers,
Jacquie

Can NLP cure snoring?

18-01-2010T17:42:04+00:00

Hi there,

I think this is an interesting question - can NLP help in curing snoring and/or sleep apnoea?

Anyone had any experience with this? suggestions to use?

Thanks

State Builders, Alphabet & Arrow Games Combined

12-07-2010T10:17:40+00:00

As part of my morning preparation before day one of a 2 day training event, I woke up early and used State Builder 1 and the Breath of Life Application before going through my training manual and training notes. I then played the Alphbet Game after all the preparation was done and used the training room as teh context where i wanted to have a very different and positive experience.

I really enjoyed the experience and low and behold Day one of the training was extraordinary for me, in many ways.

At the end of the day, i did wonder if the work was done and would carry over onto Day 2 of the training or whether or not i would be required to do a similar process for Day 2?

Anyway, on Day2, i got up early to do some prep and this time i used the Arrows game, up to step 4, without doing the Breath of Life first, and although i recognised a shift, i didn’t get the sense that it was as deep as the previous day. Subsequently, the training went well enough, but i did not feel as though i had activated as high a performance state as Day 1.

So my questions are…
Is there an overide effect everytime a New Code format is used with the same or similar context?
Does the combination of tools have an impact?
Can combining tools have a negative or diminishing return/impact?

Oh another point. when i used Sanctuary myself the other month, it was with reference with co-delivering with a particular consultant. I didn’t had the same level of anxiousness and stressful feelings when i met with her a few days before we were due to train together - so there has been some shift. And it was the same person i was training the 2 Day training with last week - i don’t know if there’s a link.

Many thanks
Oenca

Using Sanctuary

17-06-2010T17:15:03+00:00

Hi Michael

I have an on-going telephone coaching client and we met up for the first time last Tuesday for a face to face meeting. ‘X’ has mentioned thoughts and feelings of powerlessness with a number of situations at work and really wants to be more resourceful in dealing with them more often… blurr, blurr. blurr. Anyway, I asked X if they would be willing to try an technique I’d learnt from my NLP course, and they were. So I took X through the Sanctuary Exercise. It took a number of attempts to get from Sanctuary to the context as X kept accessing unsupportive inner dialogue.

I must admit, for a moment, I started to doubt my ability to take X through the exercise successfully. Anyway X did go through the exercise and it was really warming to observe X wandering around in the context, with a smile, at ease, breathing smooth and regular, and backbone straight with good posture, compared to the tension, upset, fear, amongst other things at the start of the exercise.

X wanted to tell me all about the context and go into the detail of the experience, which I discouraged, but the question remains, how will I know if the intervention worked? What could we discuss about the exercise without detracting from the sanctuary experience back in the ‘real world’?

Also, the next morning I woke up about 4am, anxious about some training I’m going to be doing with another trainer. After about 1 & half hours of unsuccessfully trying to go back to sleep, I got up and went through the Sanctuary exercise for myself. It was a bit strange trying to self calibrate as well as being in the moment as I walked towards my unresourceful state. I retreated back to sanctuary about 4 or 5 and I do think I achieved a shift. I was definitely able to go back to sleep and I do feel differently about the context. Do you have any comments?

Has anyone else used Sanctuary? What has been your experience?

Differences between HP states and trance

04-05-2010T20:14:44+00:00

Michael,
This thread is a branch springing from Suzy’s “what’s the intention” thread. I believe branching helps better in maintaining its clarity than posting my question there.
How would you specify the differences between trance and HP states? I am interested in your description, ie the way you see it.
Dymitr

What’s the intention?

29-03-2010T21:58:20+00:00

I was pondering the creation of a ‘solo’ new code game in the context of some of the suggestions we discussed as a group recently (take the example of alphabet game on a swiss-ball - balance being the calibrator).

I’ve been experimenting and not getting consistent results, and so I started to unpick the format and potential variables (most obvious variable is my own concentration - i find it more difficult to not drift into SuzyLand without a coach), and wondered what thoughts people had on the intention behind each of the steps of the New Code games (not limited to Solo)?

New Code Game for me, myself and eye…

14-01-2010T20:52:37+00:00

When we did our New Code training, we talked about the Alphabet Game being used on oneself.

I was wondering:

a) what specific experiences of doing this have people had?
b) any tips on getting the best from it?
c) any alternatives?

I ask because I LOVED alphabet on the course but haven’t had the same level of experience doing it without a coach to calibrate ‘flow’ state. I’m thinking, myself, about when to make the move…

Thanks.