NLP Academy Forums

njsc - 18 October 2009 03:27 AM

The typical route is: 
third->problem->game->problem.

Suppose any of
third->problem->game->third->problem->game->problem
third->problem->game->third->game->problem
third->problem->game->third->problem
were your proposal.

There has occured some evolution since then The description “third->problem->game->problem” is practical but maybe not entirely accurate - I postulate that the dissociated third is actually very often if not always implicitly present in the format after the game. Its presence just gets very easily forgotten. And its presence does not necessary have to be connected with visiting the spatial anchor of the third.

njsc - 18 October 2009 03:27 AM

Basically, just do what you were taught, what Mr. Carroll’s saying, it’s pretty obvious that their change format is not up for intensive debate. Also, it’s battle-tested, if you do it well, it works.

Why not “battle-test” something else (assuming that we take care of the ecology)? We still do not know the final results of Toby’s experiment. We can practically see what is the effect of using third’s spatial anchor not earlier than he has a chance to compare the reall life effect of the explicitly extended format (your middle version) with all his experience with its classical form. Unless somebody else makes similar experiment before

Anyway, thanks for your contribution - there are some elements in your thinking about the format which are entirely new for me. Something to digest again.

Cheers

Dymitr

Hi,

Yesterday I arranged space with the intention of avoiding the third occuring after the game. It worked - the angle seems to count. There was one element interfering - the size of the image. To be more thoroughly interviewed today.

Dymitr

It appears that yesterday I thought I was doing something but I ended up doing something else.
Firstly I report my yesterday’s perception as I remember it.

I asked a friend of mine whether he would like to try the NCCF. Let’s call the friend A.

1. The first step of NCCF he did sitting on the floor. He visualised with his face directed rather downwards and covered by his palms. It took then a moment before he understood what “locate on the floor” meant. At the beginning he did it in his abstract space.
2. I did not notice anything special in the second step.

I combined the separator state with arranging the place for the game. I purposefully chose the location from which A would have to step into the context again from distinctly different direction after the game than he had approached it the first time. I thought it could prevent spontaneous occurance of the third position after the game.

3. His state changed pretty quickly during the alphabet game, however in the third, last variant of it he made quite a lot of mistakes. I decided to wait until he would correct the last of them, which was reading “i” instead of “l”. It was anyway around the 10th minute of that phase of the game as he finally corrected it.
4. As I directed him into the context again I left him in it for as long as he wanted and I continued observing him. One observation was striking - he did not look like he was in the first position. Quite on the contrary. He was looking downwards and I had an impression that he was still in the third. At that very moment I did not take that observation too seriously though.

As he finished he looked at me, stepped out of the context zone and we had a little chat. He firmly stated that it had to work - and that he expected more distance the next time he would be in the context in the real life.
I was most interested whether he had seen his own image while approaching it after the game. His response was quite clear - he had not.
He used an expression “a house for puppets” when describing the size if the image he had constructed but the bell in my head produced the clear and enough loud sound only after some time. Already in the bed I realised that the third position had to be involved in the contexst zone itself.

I interviewed him today again. As he had been looking downwards in the context zone after the game, he had been observing his own very little image in the context. He also said something what I had to double-check: that he simultaneously had been looking at his little own picture and had perceived himself in the context from the first position. He said he had seen two images at the same time: of himself down on the floor and of the context from within. I tried to suggest a possibility of moving back and forth between positions but he insisted on simultaneity.

We made an agreement that he would tell me about the influence it would have in the real life. He was however very congruent while saying “it has to work”.

Dymitr

Hi njsc,

I want to be sure (or to get somewhere near) that I understand you properly; hence my question concerning the following passage from your post:

njsc - 31 October 2009 12:47 AM

Yes, you mentioned the sanctuary anchor, which I think is the same as the shake-it-off anchor of perceptual positions, used by the Andreas’s.

Which of my words you interpret as referring to the sanctuary anchor you mention?
Looking forward to hearing from you

Dymitr

No, no - I was rather exhibiting my ignorance. Clear definition of the sanctuary anchor (the term I do not know) was ment to be a first step towards understanding your post. I thought it would be most helpful if you pointed out which of my descriptions came close to your understanding of this anchor. I could then ask further questions and get a clear picture of your concept.

Hi njsc,

Your analysis has brought some clarity. I think that on the basis you’ve created I can determine that my perception of the classical form of NCCF is different from yours. Let us start with your initial statement:

njsc - 18 October 2009 03:27 AM

You could create a nondirected graph of states (problem,game,third) and transitions as a table of adjacent vertices:

STATE   ADJACENT_VERTICES
problem (third,game)
game     (problem)
third     (problem)

The typical route is: 
third->problem->game->problem.

I think its correct form should be as follows:

STATE   ADJACENT_VERTICES
problem           (third,separator state,game)
separator state (problem,game)
game               (separator state,problem)
third                 (problem)

The typical route is: 
third->problem->separator state->game->problem.

Adding the separator state - possibly similar to your sanctuary or associated present - to the description already at the beginning of reasoning influences the rest of it. In my opinion the yucky state is not the problem in the associated past position (I have never experienced such a problem) which is, by the way, always followed by the sanctuary/separator state in rather different location. It is however the problem in the dissociated past position which through too much (maybe sometimes unavoidable) association gets “yucky”. If it gets, you have to (or might want to) “shake it off” to get a clean third. One probably can do it without moving the player, too. I would, then, interpret the double triangle and the cycle on the graphic a bit differently.
So, any modification of the NCCF I could think of has the above description as a reference point.

njsc - 02 November 2009 02:58 AM

One thing that is interesting is whether the game creates a change in the problem state, the problem context,the problem behavior, or neither until the person walks back to the location of their old problem anchor. Anyway, that has to do with spatial anchoring, and the details of its use.

I think that if in the first sentence you meant the time and space between the end of the game and the moment of reaching the problem/collapsed anchors position, we are in perfect agreement here.

njsc - 02 November 2009 02:58 AM

Personally, I think the motivation to explore verbal reports of submodalities (for example, panorama, depth) would be better used to identify physiological changes in body operation that the exercise itself provides.

I think we agree here, too. Or, maybe, I tend to consider multiple description to be most useful. Anyway, the reason for posting about the story of A was that unexpected simultaneity of perceptual positions. The report about submodalities had rather an ilustratory function. I suspect that sole manipulation of space can cause a similar occurance of simultaneity after the game (supposedly more easily achievable in HPS).
What do you think?

Dymitr

My remark about the triangle and the cycle was of minor importance. Please, read this: http://www.itanlp.com/newcode.php
The rest can wait

njsc - 05 November 2009 06:09 AM

Uh, huh, nothing new there.

I might have read you wrong - it seemed to me that the idea of the separator state before the game was new to you.

njsc - 05 November 2009 06:09 AM

If you don’t like Carroll’s version,

Which one? that with the separator state or without it?

njsc - 05 November 2009 06:09 AM

or you think the separator state is necessary, or you think it is unnecessary,

So far I have never worked without it - the idea of removing it comes from you. I assume that its absence in Michael’s post was due to the context and his intention at that moment. I think he saw its presence as obvious, but I might be wrong, of course.

njsc - 05 November 2009 06:09 AM

along with third, or a return to a context state, then none of that is clear.

I have never worked without the third, either. The remark about its cleanness comes from Toby - I do not have a specific opinion about it. I interprete the story of A as an example of an incomplete return to the context. The result on the spot was interesting and I am awaiting the real life results.

njsc - 05 November 2009 06:09 AM

At this point, do you have somewhere you want to take our conversation?

Yes, I think I would propose that the sole criterion for judging any pattern is whether the pattern works, or, in another words, whether it satisfies certain shared intention.

njsc - 05 November 2009 06:09 AM

If you’re interested, you could share something about your reasons for wanting to remove anchors from the process.

Why do you think I want to remove anchors?

njsc - 05 November 2009 06:09 AM

I think I would learn from the discussion, and I’d get my question from my prior post, answered. What’s more, I’ve offered a lot of my own thinking and opinions,

I suspected that part of your thinking and opinions might have started from the false premises - that is why I asked you to read the ITA site. If the separator state presence in the format before the game is correct (in terms of being faithful to the classical form of NCCF), then I do not see much space for the cycle as you describe it. I said that my remark about the triangle and the cycle was of minor importance because I had never detected such a problem (as a real problem) in practice, whether connected with getting clean associated or dissociated past experience (i.e. clean first or third).

njsc - 05 November 2009 06:09 AM

so some of yours in the particular directions we’ve gone is now due here, hopefully with the disclosure and specificity I’ve provided.

I have an impression that we went in rather opposite directions. First of all, I do not see any advantage of removing the separator state from before the game, rather on the contrary. I do not think that I am going to experiment with such a removal but if you find any practical advantage of separator-state-less over separator-state-ful format I would be the first to use it.
If it comes to my direction away from the classical form of NCCF as I see it, it is in a way as speculative as yours (I keep my interpretation of Michael’s words about the NCCF until falsified). I was going to experiment first and then write something (or not )... I could be most specific about it if you wanted, though.

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

Whatever. You’re baiting me,

This has not been my intention ever.

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

but you have nothing to offer. I offered my thinking and opinions, you barely hint at yours.

I shared my opinion about your thoughts, whether I found them right, false or irrelevant. I trust you can make a good use of it.

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

I’ll repeat what I said earlier, that is, stick with what’s been tested and proven to work.

That is actually what I am trying to do most of the time. Plus some experiments I find safe. There is (probably) one more difference between us: we differ in our views concerning the “canonic” version of New Code Change Format as proposed by the authorities, specifically Michael Carroll - at least you have not shown any acceptance for the idea that the version with the separator state before the game is actually his, too. I do not say that the version without it is wrong. I am entirely ignorant here since anyway my interest is somewhere else.

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

Frankly, my interest in the games does not come from experience with the “NCCF”,

NCCF=New Code Change Format. I recognise its classical form to be the same as in Michael’s article on the website I was suggesting you to read.

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

or if I were to take a training with Michael and company,  I would not leave it and then announce my interest in changing the fundamental process based on some experiment of mine.

If it comes to this context, I have not left anybody

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

If my experiments showed difference in what I would expect, then I would doubt how I ran the process, rather than the process itself.

If you keep doubting both, we agree here.

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

I doubt how you run the process, I doubt how you would find theory justified or explained by how you run the process,

So do I

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

and I doubt that you are willing to subject your analyses to scrutiny enough to determine if they are any good.

Why?

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

The person who’s supposed to supply alternative explanations for your experimental results is you, but if you’re going to post and rely on others to do it, then put forward what you think happened, and why you think your explanation supports your interpretation, and that the experiment itself was a success.

Good point. I thought that I was quite explicit about it. I think you missed the change in perspective: my personal success was to find out why I got so obsessed with the third after the game - because I had unconsciously observed the third in that moment in the format. It did not exactly match what you might call “the teachings”.

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

Otherwise, you should probably be more interested in finding out what in heck you did wrong. That would be humility.

Perfect agreement. Hope so I did. I found out that one of the responsible factors or variables was the mutual location of each essential activity during the format and angles between the lines connecting them. You rather do not get the third after the game if the player enters the context from entirely different direction each time, unless… you overlook the problem with the size of the constructed image. I certainly have overlooked it at the first moment but I was able to correct my (in a way blessed) mistake…

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

It’s all well and good to say you will prove things in experience,

Surprisingly - if I am not mistaken - we are less in agreement here. I am rather interested in falsifying them in experience. If they resist I treat them - temporarily - as possibly true.

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

the trouble is, you have to rationalize what you are proving in terms of the theory you started from, and you don’t provide your thoughts about the theory nor your interpretation of its function, you parry and don’t thrust in your explanations, do you know what I mean?

With the above objection, but I would generally agree on the normative part of your statement. On the other hand: does the question of an angle need a theory?

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

Provide the point, your thoughts on third,

So, once again: some of the players see their own constructed image right after finishing the game, ie they stay for a while in the third position while walking back to the context. One of the factors responsible for that phenomenon is the angle between the direction from which they enter their context (your location 2) before and after the game. I have never found any written description of that phenomenon. Now we can map the possibilities onto the tree: 1. either that phenomenon is of minor importance from the point of view of the benefit of the player or convenience or the other benefit of the coach, or it has an influence which is not negligible; 2. if it has a considerable influence, it can be either positive or negative, or rather - it can diminish or increase the effect of the new code game.
Then the question is what kind of additional factors could influence that influence The candidate I am interested in now is the time the player could spend in the transition from the third into the first position.

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

what is your experiment meant to test,

The friend of mine, A, has actually accidentally finished his format in such a transition. Given a choice between two perceptual positions in a high performance state he has chosen the simultaneous access to them - that is how I interprete the result which I have already described in different words.
The next experiment(s) is(are) meant to challenge the following statement: “the activities between the game and reentering the context should be reduced as much as possible in order to prevent the degradation of state achieved during the game”.
So if we equate the locations: game=1, problem(context, first)=2, explicit third=3; the angle 3-2-1 should be sharp in order to evoke implicit third after the game (you probably should prequalify players, too, to make the procedure easier). The tempo of walking back into the location 2 should be not too quick in order to help the player to experience and the coach to callibrate the moment of the transition between the third and the first perceptual position and its location on the line 1-2.
We would then callibrate the size of the first position or context zone. The next step is to see whether we could get the simultaneity similar to the one we know from the story of A, if the player stopped walking back to the context on the border of the context zone. If we got that simultaneity, we could then observe the nonverbal responses accompanying it as well as the real life effects afterwards.
I would personally take into account both, the callibration made by the coach and verbal reports of the player, while judging the results.

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

or why claim to be working with the new code format at all if that’s what you want to justify your experiment in terms of,

I hope it is clear now.

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

OR, would you like to get specific about the why’s of your what, rather than “oh, I had a hunch”,

Oh yes, I had a hunch (without oh), and I was quite explicit about the area where there might be something left to discover.

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

and “oh, problems are actually experienced from disociated third”,

I do not think I have ever said it - could you please find the exact quotation?

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

without just following on and explaining what you mean when you’re asked about the point of interest, how YOU are talking about changing the format.

I do not think I am going to change the format, at least not very much. The part with the angles perfectly fits the classical description of NCCF (at least does not contradict it), but yes, the idea of asking the player to stop walking back on the border of the context zone is more brave and it is new (in terms of chronology). You would learn it anyway without asking, only later.

njsc - 06 November 2009 01:52 AM

It’s my time here reading what you’ve got to say, presenting what I thought out, but you leave your thoughts out, so quit doing it, or quit responding to me. Thanks.

I assure you that if what you do is not a provocative treatment chosen to help me (personally, I would find the provocative part not necessary if one asked about its influence on me ), I am really sorry for you feelings. Talking to you actually helps me to get some of my thoughts more clear, so I do not have any egoistic motive to stop responding your posts. However, I respect your free will to stop responding mine, if you find our conversation fruitless. I would regret it, though. Of course, I reserve the right to stop responding yours, whenever I find our conversation fruitless.

Dymitr, Toby - are you going to ‘Healer’ by any chance? I’d be interested in chatting about the New Code experiences you’ve had if you are.

Suzy

njsc,

Thank you very much for you honesty. I think it helps in making right decisions, at least so I hope.

First of all, honesty for honesty. One of the remarks from my previous post could be misleading: I said that I had not left Michael and company: because I had never joined the company, at least not before joining this forum. So it can probably limit my credibility in your eyes - I prefer it to be limited than falsely overestimated. Anyway, anything what I am going to write here can be corrected by the authorities on this forum.

Please, correct me if I am wrong: I understood that you have never conducted the New Code change format. I think we would bark up the wrong tree and lose a plenty of time if we started from an experimental modification of the format without you knowing the original format good enough in practice. I could do my best, however, to share with you my - little - experience in playing the games with friends. If you are not going to attend any relevant course in the nearest future, it might be an optimal way for you to gain some experience yourself with your friends. And that experience could answer some of your further questions itself.
You might start from looking at these files: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5byx0IKwSbA and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj_vF51n7a0. I think they are a good example of games conducted properly and interrupted at the right moment.

My sole intention is to make you able to “get it” (ie my modification) as soon as possible. I think I propose you a shortest way to achieve it. I do not find an efficient description for the drawing in the (supposed) present situation. I think the presentation of my modification now might interfere with learning the original format, too.

Thank you for finding the exact quotation of mine - it helped me in correcting my initial false understanding of your question. I feel it is a bit outside the topic of this thread - would you mind if I answered it on the thread you have authored?

Hope to hear from you soon

Dymitr

Hi Suzy

It is really nice to hear from you
Unfortunately, I cannot attend Healer this time… You can imagine how much I regret it.
I’d be very much interested in you perception of that seminar
Cheers

Dymitr

Honestly - I doubt that you are really interested

njsc,

The size of the file with the drawing is too big for the site. Sorry

Suzy Cross - 09 November 2009 12:09 AM

Dymitr, Toby - are you going to ‘Healer’ by any chance? I’d be interested in chatting about the New Code experiences you’ve had if you are.

Suzy

Hi Suzy, unfortunately not, I’d love to go but am already over committed time wise on several things. I’m sure there will be other opportunities to discuss new code experiences. I noticed your post about the midlands practice group - I’m based in the midlands but your target location is probably a little east of where I can comfortably get to regularly, perhaps when you get it running I can come to the odd meeting, I’ll keep an eye out for your developments.