NLP Academy Forums

njsc,

I promise to get back to you as soon as I solve the problem with the size of the file with the drawing. I would like you to remember, however, that the modification to which it refers does not have to turn out to be successful
You can read about the other side of the problem with the third in my reply to Michael below.
All the best

Dymitr

Dear Michael,

It took me a bit of time to figure out what kept me in sticking to the idea of the explicit third after the game. This post is at least a partial fulfilment of my promise that I would write something when my thinking about that explicit third became clearer. I hope this has happened.
In my reply to Toby, preceding your first post on this thread, I formulated a „daring thought” that the simplistic version of the format, third-game-third, could work, too. I think it was a direct reason for you to post about the invalidity of the format which lacks crashing HPS with the context perceived from the first position.
However, I wrote about the mentioned version in a very specific context of our conversation with Toby, after he had asked me about the „clean third” problem. As far as I understand him, the contamination of the third were the bits of association, ie the first position. You ask for the third and you get the first at least in addition.
In that very context I did not mean the third literally. I was rather referring to the explicit requests of the coach, not the player’s/client’s response. (There is a certain limited, heuristic similarity with the njsc’s distinction between external and internal anchors from his second post on this thread here).
Indeed, if the third the coach asks for is not clean, it might be not necessary to create an extra anchor for the first position. We might directly jump into the separator state and create an atmosphere of preparation or „warming up”. This atmosphere could continue throughout the game. After the game you just ask (or manouevre) the player to „rest” at the same position s/he had started the format.
An advantage of this version of the format consists in a very little space for resistance and a playful frame. The player hardly gets overloaded with the theoretical information and may even not notice going through any format before finishing it.
This version of the format needs a careful callibration. One has to know whether the third is not actually the first, too, and act accordingly.
I would be very much interested in your thoughts

Dymitr

Hi Dymitr

Firstly I would like to compliment you on your initiation and ongoing contribution to this thread. You have put your case across very well.

If someone is routinely challenged in getting a clean third- bringing a HP state to third would be a useful option. I think generalising the format would have limitations.

Way back in the thread - you mentioned you discussed the process shortly after a game with the player reviewing the first position representation’s from an implicit third. When a client plays a new code game - you do not usually review the first position afterwards as such a review potentially disrupts the process. The client waits until he/she is back in the context and just experiences what happens - which is usually something very different than the old choice and what the client anticipated would happen.

Michael

Hi Michael,

It is over and over surprising how much anchoring power is possessed by nice words . Thank you.

Coming back to work, when you speak about interviewing:
1. Do you mean interviewing after the game or after the format?
2. Do you mean interviewing about the content, process, or both?
What I did was interviewing after the format and just about the process, not content.

Dymitr

Hi njsc,

I have finally reduced the drawings and they fit. I don’t have time for explanations now - I will try to write about them as soon as I can.
Sorry for the quality.

Dymitr

njsc,

Here a few words about first drawing. It refers to the story of A. In short, A, a friend of mine, went through the format intended to be strictly classical. However it turned out to be not so: the bigger figure on the drawing represents A himself in the final step of the format and the small figure is his previously constructed image. A is looking downwards at his own little image plus the context not included here (third position) and at the same time he is experiencing the context from the first position. How he could do it simultaneously I have no clue about, the only suspicion is that HPS has made it somehow possible. Anyway, while visiting the „context zone” for the first time, he had been experiencing the context from the first position only. Since the „choice” of accessing both perceptual positions simultaneously has been made in a high performance state, I assume that it has had some advantages over accessing only the first.
It follows that an effort could be made to enable other players to choose such a simultaneous access after the game.
I am going to comment the second drawing soon
Take care

Dymitr

Hi Dymitr

What limitations would it have, Michael?

The above question refers to the limitations of generalisng your idea. A limitation is that you seem intent in wanting to make your format fit all. This gives mininum felxibility. I have stated if a client wants more choice in third, take the HP to third. Other than that the extra step serves no purpose. The context first is marked with VAK circuits, the third is to identfy the playing space.

Do you mean interviewing after the game or after the format?
2. Do you mean interviewing about the content, process, or both?
What I did was interviewing after the format and just about the process, not content

The term I used was review.  After the game, the client is procesing change, you just let things sit and let the client process.

All the best

Michael

He’s a teacher, and his distinctions are clear to me, how about you?]

Yes, I am a teacher and I am open to new ideas - so keep them flowing.

Michael

However, new ideas are manifest in behavior long before they’re conceptualized, modeling shows the behaviors, whether or not they are conceptualized as such, then NLP modelers learn the behaviors without conceptualizing them first. So far, no new ideas occur. Once the learning takes place, your students probably know this, new ideas naturally flow. That’s my idea of how you operate as a teacher. The NLP discipline seems suited for learning by that means.

Excellent comment and very accurate of modelling and NLP Training.

Michael

A long running and entertaining thread, very interesting to follow the process . I’ve learned something from all involved and the process of Michael’s contributions showing something of NLP perception and approach. Look forward to watching more new ideas discussed.

njsc,

Now the comment about the second drawing. It is important, however, to keep in mind what has been said about the first one, since what would be interesting in possible future experiments is allowing the players to achieve similar simultaneous access to the first and the third position in the final step of the format after the game. The main and accidental factor causing that simultaneous access in the case of A was his choice of the size of the image he produced originally from the third position. He dutifully experienced the context from the first position in the second step but after the game something unexpected has happened: simultaneous access to both, first and third position. I guess it was not his conscious choice but the effect of being in HPS.
The classical NCCF is rigid in a sense that it tends to exclude such a possibility of getting simultaneous access to both positions in the final step. The player is expected to finish only in the first position, period. The story of A opens the Pandora’s box with questions: why has A got that simultaneity after the game even when his first position before the game was clean? One of possible answers sounds: that simultaneity, chosen naturally in HPS, was helpful at least in this particular case. And it would not have been possible if the size of the original constructed image had not been allowing looking at this image from the third position.
Let us temporarily assume that the mentioned simultaneity has a general value, not in the case of A only. How could we repeat that phenomenon? Strangely enough, A got a clean first in the second step despite the size of the image he constructed in the first step. One might try to suggest his/her players to construct small images but the effect seems to be to unnatural and random already before any real action.
The second picture shows the possibility of getting similar effect of simultaneity without the necessity of manipulating the size of the image.
I have observed that in certain cases the third position occurs naturally between the game and the final step of the format (I mean the orthodox, conservative form of NCCF here). One of the responsible factors is the angle between the directions from which the context zone (2 on the drawing) is approached both times. The angle AB on the drawing represents the widest possibility which may vary from person to person. I assume that a player with good visual imagination would spontaneously see his/her own image while approaching location 2 after the game if the respective angle was narrow enough (the extreme case is when the game is played actually in the same location from which the image has been constructed but with the player not facing the context zone). Maybe there are players who without having been previously instructed would see their own image also from opposite direction, but I have not met any of them.
One ends up the classical format in the clean first position regardless of the implicit third occurring or not occurring after the game. Despite my initial impression the final effect of the game does not seem to be affected by the implicit third factor. Its presence leaves room, however, for trying to enable players to end up the format experiencing a simultaneity similar to the one we have already spoken about. I have drawn the line 1-2 which represents the route the player takes from the game location to the context. If the player continues seeing his/her own image throughout that route, there has to be a moment of turning the third into the first position. The reason why it is never detected is very simple: in the classical NCCF moving from the game to the context is in some ways very similar to shaking hands in the western culture: both do not have middles in our mental maps (we exclude hypnotists from our reasoning here).
Whether that route would have any middle depends only on the way of preparing the player to the game. Our – or maybe only mine - explicitly expressed interest in the moment of transition from the third into the first position after the game can certainly influence the player’s perception. The player might also want to stop in the place where that transition occurs and, maybe, experience the simultaneous access I am interested in now. The simultaneity, once under control, can be judged against the single access to the first position after the game.

Dymitr

njsc,

Thank you

The way you formulate your message suggests that we have a problem in two points and the rest is fine. This assumption can turn to be our false friend, so I would insist on an explicit formulation what we agree on. My first candidates would be: we agree on the existence of the implicit third after the game in some cases and that the transition from the game location to the context location has not been explored enough. I would find it very welcome if we also agreed on the statement that there is room for checking the influence of coach’s preceding instructions on how the state is directed after the game. Can you be OK with that demand? I would be interested in learning your view concerning our new common ‘knowledge’.
I really want to stress that I do not have many doubts about the relevance of your answer but on the other hand I know how many things can turn out to be different from previous expectations. I hope you can survive this – excruciating for many – procedure.

Dymitr

njsc - 07 December 2009 06:35 AM

Sure. I can be OK with it or I can turn it down

Could you please be most specific with what you mean by “it” in the above quotation?

Hello everybody,

I was just thinking of a little (and perhaps unnecessary ) Christmas early gift for you and here it is
One can think of making variations of the known games. I experimented with Colours by Daryll Scott (see daryllscott.com) today and discovered another possible confusing twist. (By the way, I do not know any other easily accessible New Code game video presentation except his on Youtube – Daryll, chapeau bas if you ever read this).
Daryll’s idea was to make the player read aloud the written names of colours and react kinesthetically to the real colours which were used to write those names. Obviously, the names of colours and the colours used to write them should not always match.
I made my first experiment with a variation of Colours long time ago: it consisted in reversing verbal and kinesthetic responses, so I moved according to a written name and said the colour used to write that name. It was probably the first time I really knew nothing as I was playing Colours that way.
The variation I consider to be my Christmas tree little contribution is a tiny bit more subtle: you write the names of colours in a foreign language but you read them English. It does not exclude the possibility of reversals, of course
I wish you a very warmhearted Christmas and a lot of fun at the New Year’s Eve parties
Yours

Dymitr

Hi Michael,

One of my purposes of this letter is to give you an opportunity to change the kind of anchoring that I mentioned somewhere else.

Michael Carroll - 28 November 2009 01:42 AM

A limitation is that you seem intent in wanting to make your format fit all. This gives mininum felxibility. I have stated if a client wants more choice in third, take the HP to third. Other than that the extra step serves no purpose. The context first is marked with VAK circuits, the third is to identfy the playing space.

I am not going to declare that I will eat my shoes if you have already tried out any of the extended versions of NCCF I proposed, but I find it pretty unlikely that you have. Hope I am wrong…
You stated there is no purpose in the additional step in the NCCF ‘other than that’. I believe now, provided my understanding of your statement has been correct, that you were wrong.
The fact that I tend to contest your opinion may say more about me than its validity. So a little description of the experience that contributed to my belief could help you in determining what’s right and what is not.
On the 6th of June I started a ten days programme of limiting my negative emotions or, maybe, checking whether my emotions satisfy my expectations. Anyway, I decided to do my best in breaking down as early as possible all the possible destructive patterns that might occur.
I woke up pretty early that day in order to see the sunrise over the lake which is near the place I live. I decided to run around the lake (about 5-6 km). I really liked my emotions until… yeah, funny, there were not very many people there, I talked shortly to the guy I met – was fine – and then I saw a girl, young woman I had a strong liking to talk to but I met a strong inner resistance. Wasn’t so bad (the inner conflict, I mean), so I could still persuade myself that the day was a success. Nevertheless, I decided to apply NCCF to that context (I had discovered that it can influence also a personal history and work is if ‘backwards’ in time by changing the perception of memories perceived from the 1st position). A few days later I met Z, the person I had mentioned in one of the earlier posts here, and asked her to lead me through the NCCF. I believe she did her job pretty well. She was however not conscious of my additional intention of paying a visit after the completion of the format to the position from which I located my own picture on the floor. As I indeed did it, the picture I had previously constructed and visited ‘in person’, changed of course, but rather in the visual than kinesthetic modality, which is not surprising. It got as if ‘emptied’ somehow… No, the kinesthetics were present, too – I was astonished.
On the 15th of June I watched a film in which a man approached an attractive woman who didn’t know him and he quickly made the mutual interest possible. The acting in the movie was superb and it was very easy for me to see the similarity to the picture I had constructed during the format. Note – I may have seen such situations dozens of times, but I had never made an efficient connection between the events I had had seen and situations I had had taken part in, before I built this connection in HPS. As you may guess now, I soon put my observations into practice, and ‘soon’ means ‘on the 16th of June’ here. Jogging again, an attractive girl aggain, and the repetition of the pattern seen on the screen before. Maybe not an exact repetition, variation rather, but done in a very smooth and consistent way. We ended up chatting along her way home and made a friendly farewell – nothing special, really. It was nothing about seduction, either – my intention was simply to get rid of not feeling comfortable while thinking of doing something I wanted and eventually not doing it.
Now, you might think I would have achieved the same result without an additional step. I doubt an exact emulation for several reasons.
First of all, I can perceive the difference non-intellectually. I simply know that this time my reaction was different from all the other times. The perceptional astonishment occurred not only in the repeated first but also in the 3rd position, and for different reasons.
Secondly, only after this version can I recall a memory of heaving learned something from the external events and applying my observations to my own actions afterwards.
Thirdly, the feeling of change was present while watching the movie, too.
And fourthly, there is no theoretical reason to deny the benefits of the additional step I proposed, or at least I don’t see any such reasons. The HPS is utilised in this version of NCCF in two ways: the subject has HPS to their disposal whenever they are in the context in the future, and they have it also when anybody else around is in a similar context – basically for the purpose of speeding up the process of learning or imitation of effective patterns, if they occur.
The more detailed description of this form of NCCF you can find in the post starting with words ‘Suzy, I owe you’. Indeed, I do.
Looking forward to your reply after you experiment with the step I propose – maybe you have done it already. Anyway, I would be realy curious to learn why you used the phrase ‘serves no purpose’ the other day…
Yours
Dymitr