skip
02-22-2009, 07:20 AM
The following is part of a discussion going on in another list. I thought you might be interested in the premises discussed and consider for yourself what is true for you.
“Agreed again.
Good grief!
At this point in writing this post I suddenly realised that the
modeling process CANNOT be entirely unconscious.
Part of what Grinder describes in the process is occasional testing of
one's developing model to see if one can yet replicate the results
achieved by the exemplar.
But how can one do that unless one knows what results one wants to
replicate?
Thanks, Skip.
I shall have to give this some thought.
Be well
Andy B.”
As I see it Andy, you are both right and also right in a completely other way.
Because if you say it is a conscious act you are right.
And if you say it is completely unconscious, you are also right.
BUT Andy I would admonish you to first use your own personal experience with modeling as a guide. Do you do it completely unconsciously, or do you occasionally monitor your progress. Forget what I or Bandler or Grinder SAY, what do you DO?
Let me if you will make a distinction between NLP modeling and ‘Natural’ modeling.
NLP modeling is at once a deliberate conscious act to acquire (duplicate) specific skill sets. Conscious decision first, DTI immersion, with occasional conscious monitoring.
“Natural’ modeling is something we all do, and have done since birth. We ‘completely’ unconsciously take on the mannerisms and such of others whom we admire. And we also monitor this to ensure we are duplicating the desired behavior. Just not on a conscious level.
Women when put into groups for long periods of time, gradually alter their menstrual cycles to correspond with each other. A form of modeling and one I dare say is done completely unconsciously, as is not a deliberate conscious act.
We humans are modeling machines. We are from birth, and continue to death, and who knows, perhaps beyond.
Bandler and Grinder didn’t do anything new. (Except for noticing and then codifying) NLP isn’t new, it is about taking what we have always done, albeit unconsciously, and giving us the ability to consciously choose to do it as well. I don’t say it that way to diminish at all their accomplishment, it was/is an amazing quantum leap.
Did you ever ‘method act’?
Do you remember Dustin Hoffman in Rainman?
Now Dustin doesn’t know NLP from squat, but he does know Method Acting and that was a hell of a modeling job he did. Months later at the academy awards he was still ‘stuck’ in character.
Any hero worship, any ‘monkey see monkey do’, any taking on charactaristics or behaviors admired in others, whether done consciously deliberately, or completely unconsciously is modeling.
Read enough Browning, and you begin to speak like Browning. It even works, God forbid, with Joyce.
When I was a teenager I had a habit of exclaiming “good heavens”. One day I noticed one of my girlfriends saying it too. Now she didn’t sit down and deliberately decide to start using that exclamation. She admired me to the point that she unconsciously began imitating me. ‘Natural’ modeling.
Folks who ‘NLP’ modeled Bandler in the 80’s all the sudden started smoking.
That is the way it is with modeling. You get it all. The benefit of NLP modeling is after you acquire the skill set, you can discard the unwanted behaviors. Not so with Natural modeling.
As I perceive it, modeling is essentially the same ‘natural’ mechanism every baby is born with. Most of the time we do it ‘naturally’ completely unconsciously, thus the wisdom of the admonition ‘surround yourself with good people’.
Some of us know because of LP, how to deliberately select excellence and choose to model that.
Is that of any further benefit?
skip
“Agreed again.
Good grief!
At this point in writing this post I suddenly realised that the
modeling process CANNOT be entirely unconscious.
Part of what Grinder describes in the process is occasional testing of
one's developing model to see if one can yet replicate the results
achieved by the exemplar.
But how can one do that unless one knows what results one wants to
replicate?
Thanks, Skip.
I shall have to give this some thought.
Be well
Andy B.”
As I see it Andy, you are both right and also right in a completely other way.
Because if you say it is a conscious act you are right.
And if you say it is completely unconscious, you are also right.
BUT Andy I would admonish you to first use your own personal experience with modeling as a guide. Do you do it completely unconsciously, or do you occasionally monitor your progress. Forget what I or Bandler or Grinder SAY, what do you DO?
Let me if you will make a distinction between NLP modeling and ‘Natural’ modeling.
NLP modeling is at once a deliberate conscious act to acquire (duplicate) specific skill sets. Conscious decision first, DTI immersion, with occasional conscious monitoring.
“Natural’ modeling is something we all do, and have done since birth. We ‘completely’ unconsciously take on the mannerisms and such of others whom we admire. And we also monitor this to ensure we are duplicating the desired behavior. Just not on a conscious level.
Women when put into groups for long periods of time, gradually alter their menstrual cycles to correspond with each other. A form of modeling and one I dare say is done completely unconsciously, as is not a deliberate conscious act.
We humans are modeling machines. We are from birth, and continue to death, and who knows, perhaps beyond.
Bandler and Grinder didn’t do anything new. (Except for noticing and then codifying) NLP isn’t new, it is about taking what we have always done, albeit unconsciously, and giving us the ability to consciously choose to do it as well. I don’t say it that way to diminish at all their accomplishment, it was/is an amazing quantum leap.
Did you ever ‘method act’?
Do you remember Dustin Hoffman in Rainman?
Now Dustin doesn’t know NLP from squat, but he does know Method Acting and that was a hell of a modeling job he did. Months later at the academy awards he was still ‘stuck’ in character.
Any hero worship, any ‘monkey see monkey do’, any taking on charactaristics or behaviors admired in others, whether done consciously deliberately, or completely unconsciously is modeling.
Read enough Browning, and you begin to speak like Browning. It even works, God forbid, with Joyce.
When I was a teenager I had a habit of exclaiming “good heavens”. One day I noticed one of my girlfriends saying it too. Now she didn’t sit down and deliberately decide to start using that exclamation. She admired me to the point that she unconsciously began imitating me. ‘Natural’ modeling.
Folks who ‘NLP’ modeled Bandler in the 80’s all the sudden started smoking.
That is the way it is with modeling. You get it all. The benefit of NLP modeling is after you acquire the skill set, you can discard the unwanted behaviors. Not so with Natural modeling.
As I perceive it, modeling is essentially the same ‘natural’ mechanism every baby is born with. Most of the time we do it ‘naturally’ completely unconsciously, thus the wisdom of the admonition ‘surround yourself with good people’.
Some of us know because of LP, how to deliberately select excellence and choose to model that.
Is that of any further benefit?
skip