NLP Academy Forums

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

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 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

Well, I went over it last night, slept on whether to post my thoughts, and now take a consequent point of view. You know, FA is an artificial distinction, if sensory representation uses the same biological hardware for memory as for recording ( experiencing in real time). Regardless, the f2 transform idea is an arbitrary distinction, because ordering functions are the recombinatorial possibilities of physiological processes, so FA contains all f2 transform output, if it has any sensory representation. if not, then it doesn’t exist for any human being accused of f2 transforming, anything. The relevance of f2 is whether the FA can be symbolized, but the symbol processing, if it occurs, is all recombination of FA, through and through. Discussion of symbol effects in the abstract has no relevance to how the symbols are represented, as FA experience.

edit:

Esoteric, meaning:
* hard to understand
* hard to relate to context

to decide whether: 

* a trainer benefits from engaging their client in verbal descriptions of the client’s state?

F2 representations are inferred consequences of:

1. a partially ordered collection of physiological products of (internal or external) sensory data processing.

2. one or more physiological processes repeating in response to other repeated processes. I call the repeated processes tokens.

3. the tokens arbitrarily multiply and redistribute within the duration of sensory processing as a response to internal and external FA.

4. Each repeated physiological process provides potentially new ordering of tokens within larger representational structures. A new token or new token structure implies new FA. return to step 1 and continue at the same time.

5. arbitrary token transformation or substitution occurs on an ad hoc basis, via steps 1-4 working as a subsystem creating “f2”, however, ad hoc changes called f2 have no built-in identity or coherency constraint that f1 does not. f2 is limited by physiological processing performance, and is a subset of FA. return to steps 1 and 4 and continue at the same time.

There is no difference between substituting tokens and adding in new ones during human function. We never really keep anything separate in our heads simply by the fact of addition of FA, because tokens have no identity or coherency constraints during representation.  That is why I did not distinguish FA that is internal from external. Obviously, however, signs of processing internal versus external FA will be different. Nevertheless, internal FA exists in recording mode in addition to memory mode.

Edit 2: as far as the feedforward/feedback distinction, it appeared to me to do with fitting meaning to words, and then considering the words as reframes, and then the person speaking responding to the reframes. It’s what Dr. Grinder and Ms. Bostic St. Clair referred to as a “pedagogical distinction”, similar in its intent to the old filters model from SOM I that one of Dr. Grinder’s linguist friend’s showed to be incoherent. That’s in WITW as well. Look for it.

If you’re looking to make a show of New Code pedagogical distinctions, be sure to sort out what you intend. Why on Earth would you ask what would happen if you asked about a person’s state if you’re supposed to be a New Code trainer? Was it a serious question, or are you trying to be provocative? What is the confusion? You don’t like the feedforward/feedback lingo, join the club, but it serves its purpose if you get the message behind the lingo. Don’t ask about your client’s state. Simple. Easy. Neither esoteric nor eclectic.

Edit 3: if you really want a description of a sequential process, complete with brain states (because HPS involves f2 transforms, and f2 transforms are f1 transforms, if you include internal FA), then you’re better off studying neurology, and creating extensive histories of human development, modeling that development as a function of biological physical/chemical/heat/vibration/... transfer with the environment, and deciding what programming deserves attention. First of all. So forget feedforward. It’s food-forward time.

Hello njsc,

Thank you for responding and offering your thoughts.  I do apologize if my post was poorly worded, confusing or inappropriate in any way. 

Why on Earth would you ask what would happen if you asked about a person’s state if you’re supposed to be a New Code trainer? Was it a serious question, or are you trying to be provocative?

My intention was to understand what is going on so that I could pass on an explanation to students that have asked me for a more detailed explanation.

Don’t ask about your client’s state. Simple. Easy. Neither esoteric nor eclectic.

As a rule, I don’t. Nor do I demo/teach students to.  However,  I have noticed that students are sometimes stuck in ‘auditory digital’.  I thought it would be helpful to have an explanation (if possible) that would explain to them what can be happening. 

I’m ready to accept that a written/verbal description is not a neccessary or helpful tool and to your point, to understand what goes on may require a study of neurology which I am not interested in doing at this time. 

Cheers,
Jacquie

Yes, your post was confusing. I found it difficult to relate to my experience, even with the bullet point style, I had to actually think about what you wrote and carefully relate it to what I know. Apologizing to me is unnecessary, but I like your style.

First, may I point out that your rigorous presentation shows a competence that you should maintain and develop? Some kinds of change are only possible through careful analysis and exposition of alternatives, and since you did that here, you could benefit yourself. Regardless, you will benefit anyone who takes the
time to explore the differences in the alternatives you propose. Developing the habit of defining logical levels, types, and partial orderings of descriptions taken from certain types of presentations will help you engage the content of a presentation without getting caught up in the delivery. Thank you for doing so.

A few points about all three alternatives you propose:
* each alternative assumes a person accesses the HPS when they access an internal state in response to questions.
* each alternative assumes a person in a HPS creates a verbal response to spoken questions.
* some steps of each alternative are described as loops, but a loop is a cycle, a return to an earlier point. If that is what you mean by ‘loop’, does the looping involve returning to the same F2 or FA products, or just f1 and f2 transforms/processes, or some mix of products and transforms?
* each alternative could be interpreted to be a fully-ordered sequence, but the actual sequences may:
** be partially ordered
** contain cycles
** have portions that operate independently in parallel
** have branching portions
* your ordering principle defining your sequenced lists appears to be some combination of time and causal dependency, but its not clear which, or if there is another ordering principle involved.

A profitable direction for you would be toward an outcome frame for the distinctions that you want to use with your students. Rather than leave them out, you could use pedagogical distinctions as teaching tools. You could take a look at your alternative understandings of feedforward/feedback, decide on which one you think is the most likely to elicit proper behavior from your students after they interpret it, and choose that alternative as your teaching tool. Obviously, your explanation would have to be framed as an aid to understanding, but not a mathematically rigorous or physiologically accurate description of a person’s internal behaviors.

Something’s worth changing if your students are in such doubt that only a rigorous verbal description will satisfy them. They need to learn the limits of their own interpretative and processing ability to use what they produce, but that’s more an experience thing, usually people ignore the waste the way they ignore their garbage once they throw it out, unfortunately, so the knowledge might not help. Likely as not, they’re just inhaling data smog like its clean air. Or maybe they need more commitment so they just dont care, and concentrate only on the goal.

As for the time you spend developing rigorous descriptions of any kind, I’ll offer you my experience:

* it helps when you would think wisdom and experience are what were really needed. Sometimes a fresh perspective and a consistent type of analysis will produce fantastic results when someone outside the process provides it, a neutral party. I’ve been on both sides of this.

* descriptions alone are not enough. Tying descriptions to actions is where the success is, and its a lifetime of work, possibly. Where you focus your attention will determine what you can change.

Regarding eclectic versus esoteric descriptions:

* NLP New Code had eclectic influences, (castaneda, cybernetics, linguistics, hypnosis, tribal music, behavioral vision therapy).
* esoterica in New Code is a self-limiting feature of the field, if it exists. transparent descriptions make it easier to develop the field.

Sorry to write so strangely, I don’t have time to edit right now, but if I do later, I’ll come back and clean this up.

njsc - 29 June 2010 07:26 PM

The relevance of f2 is whether the FA can be symbolized, but the symbol processing, if it occurs, is all recombination of FA, through and through. Discussion of symbol effects in the abstract has no relevance to how the symbols are represented, as FA experience.

Hi Nj I have tried really really hard to get my head around your post and this question may be well off the mark relating to what I have quoted: Would eliciting the Sm’s of a context be considered be considered an f2 symbolization of FA?

Well, what would be the implications if my answer were “yes”, if my answer were “no”, or either way? Are you just thinking about what to ask clients when? You want to know what’s happening in their bodies when you interrupt them with questions about how they feel, or compared to earlier, or ?

My question is more related to what’s happening when they build the context initially - are the Sm’s an f2 symbolisation of FA or are they what is actually stored as FA. My intention for asking is because I am trying to figure out how attaching a HPS to a context is more ecological than using Milton patterns. What’s the difference occuring? As I have not done trainers training it is difficult as a practitioner to deepen understanding of the underlying epistemology. I appreciate that NLP is pragmatic in nature although a purely inductive approach won’t allow me to develop my full potential.

Are you assuming these pedagogical models are a broad accounting and condensing of all the facts at the disposal of their sources? They are not.

Besides, assuming I draw out to the nth degree all the pieces I could create and place in my model that draws on the WITW model, it would raise more questions than it answered, and might conflict with your experience, making my work on it wasted if you just abandoned it. Besides, it’s only a model, not Dr. Grinder or Ms. Bostic St. Clair’s model, so please don’t assume otherwise.

What I remember of their model in WITW is that some verbal expressions presume or impose content. So methods of leading people into states serve you better when you take care in your use of language. The milton model gives you tools to presume about, and thereby create, internal FA through auditory digital input to a client in a state of rapport. So, I think, the difference is pretty obvious, just map it out, thinking about what you would say, what it presumes, whether that’s content, etc, etc.

I wouldn’t worry about your potential. If you’re wanting to explore taking a model to the nth degree, choose another than the one I offered. My model is vague, open to interpretations, and missing pieces that would make it make sense or have application to your area of interest. Thanks.

PS: Why don’t you ask Jack? That guy’s got good information, and he’s coming from a better place to offer you good information.

That’s cool thanks for the input. I have some experimenting to do then I will create a post. Thanks Nj

One more thing, and that is new code games are actually more likely to work and easier to perform, using milton model places higher demands on your ability to detect and respond to nonverbal cues, including those signaling incongruity, for example. The games put people into highperformance states by tasking a person, where the person fails to play well if they’re not in the state. Contrast that with the milton model, where you have no other clue than nonverbals and client reports that anything is going on. use of the game puts a person in a desirable state through movement and developing focus. the milton model offers no guarantees at all. Finally, this thread started out about people doing nlp who rely on their client’s verbal reports, well, clients lie, are clueless themselves, say what they think you want to hear, or just get bored of sitting with you and dont want to think they wasted their money, so you ‘hear’ all kinds of crap. if you do that with the milton model you’re really up the creek, and you’ll get some really boring, pointless sessions to add to your list of ‘successes’.

No worries. Non verbals is all you have to go off with the games as well. The games offer no gaurantees either. And the client can be totally clueless to the effectiveness of the game (they can still think it has worked because I was so congruent in the delivery and they wouldn’t want to think they have wasted their money would they?) and they can also think it has worked when to be honest, they chose the wrong context. I have seen this while calibrating a distinct state shift. The client felt “good” for want of a label for the state (mine not the clients I completely distracted after wards and gave strict instructions to just forget about it) but it quickly became clear to me she had chosen the wrong context all together as the same issues continued but she had a new state. Personally I don’t care what the client “says” just what I observe in terms of non verbals and I am not saying I am amazing at it but work towards it and do pick up on incongruenties. What I am attemtping to make sense of is what you have offered. Their is the epistemological argument that reframing in any sense for example won’t cut it because you are working at the level of f2 and not FA. I am not convinced, yet,,... but that may be due to my inferior understanding rather than a valid point which is why I engaged.

  With regards to the OP I don’t know why you would ask what the client was feeling other than being nosy. I do not know and I am not saying it is merely being nosy. With regards to questions however I do ask them if they can get the feeling back? Any other dialogue would utilise Milton patterning if nothing else than a better distractor than just telling them to forget about it (which I didn’t know how to do when I did the previous example)

No, the games let a therapist check the player’s performance of that game. The therapist can check their play, indicators like rhythm, lack of errors, these are easier cues to detect, particularly with the client tasked to play, instead of sit around. The indicators of a problem state and the HPS in a game are easier to find than the nonverbal cues signaling attention, rapport, congruity, parts, strategies, and relevance of whole body communications to the problem of interest.  With the milton model, the therapist cues nonverbals with their whole body, and while talking. The therapist has to be more congruent to get their own nonverbals right, they provide all the timing and anchoring through communication, rather than tasking the client to get the timing through the game, and anchoring by physical location.

Yeah, I suppose a client could choose the wrong problem, mm, I guess I assume the client knows when they want their behavior or experience to be different, or you help them with whatever context bothers them. That’s a prerequisite for your getting permission to help them, in my judgement, though of course with milton, sleight of mouth, reframing, hypnogogic interruptions, you could ‘help’ people even if they really weren’t wanting that..

With the Milton model, the client can do whatever while you try to pace and lead them to reach a goal. The therapist does the work of separating, integrating, anchoring, et cetera, while the client sits around.  Working with content is difficult to avoid, so there’s ethical risks as well, and more overhead trying to come up with how to deal with the latest XYZ from them while maintaining state, anchors, personal congruity, et cetera.

Don’t tell me doing milton is the same difficulty as playing games. it’s not at all, it’s way harder to use it, sitting next to the client, getting them through separating, anchoring an HPS, and then integrating it with a problem context, as cleanly as you can with a game. Not to mention, I’ve seen some real crap coming from people claiming to be “creative” during their use of the Milton model. OTOH, I’ve seen some really good stuff, too, though not from the same people.

Anyway, you might be competent at all that hard work of changework Milton Erickson-style, but that’s not really the point, is it.

That’s excellent feedback, thanks NJ