First published on www.cleanlanguage.co.uk on 19 July 2006
HOW TO DO AN NLP MODELLING PROJECT by Penny Tompkins and James Lawley
Section 1 of 8 Introduction The follow following ing sectio sections ns summar summarise ise over over ten years years of experi experienc ence e of modell modelling ing,, conducting formal modelling projects and training modelling. Our ideas are presented as working notes and guidelines rather than a finished article. We intend to keep updating and expanding these notes. Please revisit this site and let us know if you think there is something we should add. All new contributions will, of course, be credited.
Section 2: Learning how to do a Modelling Project for the First Time Section 3: Defining a Modelling Project Section 4: Stage 1: Preparing to do a Modelling Project Section 5: Stage 2: Gathering Information Section 6: Stage 3: Constructing a Model Section 7: Stage 4: Testing Your Model Section 8: Stage 5: Acquiring the Model (Incomplete) list of References: Most NLP books are about the results of modelling projects, not about the modelling process itself. For example, the first five (pre-NLP) books by John Grinder & Richard Bandler's (and others) were the product of their modelling. You have to read between the lines to infer how they modelled: Bandl Bandler, er, Richa Richard rd & Grinde Grinder, r, John, John, The The Stru Struct ctur ure e of Magi Magic c vol.I vol.I , (Sci (Scien ence ce and and Behaviour Books, 1975) Bandler, Richard, and John Grinder, Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D. Volume 1, 1, (Meta Publications, Cupertino, CA, 1975)
1
Grinder, John, and Bandler, Richard, The Structure of Magic vol. II (Science II (Science and Behaviour Books, 1976) Bandler, Richard, Grinder, John, and Satir, Virginia, Changing with Families (Science and Behaviour Books, 1976) Grinde Grinder, r, John, John, Judith Judith DeLozi DeLozier, er, and and Richar Richard d Bandle Bandler, r, Patter Patterns ns of the Hypno Hypnotic tic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D. Volume 2 (Meta 2 (Meta Publications, Cupertino, CA, 1977) For more overt information on modelling you can consult: The original and highly technical work on eliciting, designing, utilising and installing stra strate tegi gies es is by Rich Richar ard d Band Bandle ler, r, John John Gr Grin inde der, r, Robe Robert rt Dilt Dilts s & Judi Judith th DeLozier , NLP Volume 1 (Meta Publications, 1980). For For a shor shorte terr and and simp simple lerr intr introd oduc ucti tion on to stra strate tegy gy elici elicita tati tion on,, see see chap chapte terr 4 of Charlotte of Charlotte Bretto's, Bretto's, A A Framework for Excellence (Grinder, DeLozier & Associates, 1988). Anthony Robbins has a very readable couple of chapters on modelling strategies in Unlimited Power (Simon Power (Simon & Schuster, 1988). Leslie Leslie Cameron-B Cameron-Bandl andler, er, David David Gordon Gordon & Michael Michael Lebeau Lebeau wrote The Emprint Method: A Guide to Reproducing Competence in order "to provide you with tools that will will enable enable you you to identi identify fy and acqui acquire re (or transf transfer er to others others)) desira desirable ble human human aptitudes." Although David Gordon Gordon now says it is really about modelling emotional compet competenc ence, e, it is still still one of the most most compre comprehen hensiv sive e models models of modell modelling ing yet published. (Real People Press, 1985) Judith Judith DeLozier DeLozier 's ' s arti articl cle e 'Ma Mast ster ery, y, Ne New w Co Codi ding ng,, an and d Sy Syst stem emic ic NL NLP P' in NLP World (Vol. World (Vol. 2 No. 1, March 1995) has a brief description of a "not knowing" state that is excellent for "intiutive modelling". An account of her and John Grinder 's 's modelling project of people who have completed interesting modelling projects can be found in Turtles All The Way Down (Grinder, DeLozier & Associates, 1987). Robert Dilts &Todd Epstein's Epstein 's Tools For Dreamers (1991) is packed with micro and macro processes for modelling with lots of examples of strategies for creativity. (Meta Publications, 1991) The three volumes by Robert Dilts, Dilts, Strategies of Genius Volumes I, II & III are III are the definitive work on "conceptual modelling", especially when your sexemplar is an historic figure. (Meta Publications, 1994/1995) Robert Dilts, Dilts, Modelling with NLP , provides an in-depth look at the modelling process and its applications. (Meta Publications, 1998). Robert Dilts and judith and judith DeLozier , Encyclopaedia of NLP , (NLP University Press, 2000) www.nlpuniversitypress.com 2
James Lawley and Penny Tompkins detail a new form of modelleing in Metaphors in Mind: Transformation through Symboilic Modelling (Developing Company Press, 2000 2000). ). Thei Theirr webs websit ite ewww.cleanlanguage.co.uk cont contai ains ns nume numero rous us arti articl cles es on modelling, including 'Intrducing 'Intrducing Modelling to Organisations', Organisations ', (Rapport 40, 1998) John John Grinde Grinder r and and Carm Carmen en Bost Bostic ic St Clai Clair r , Whis Whispe peri ring ng in the the Wind Wind (( J & C Enterprises, CA, 2001) www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com John John McWhir McWhirter ter ''Re Re-m -mod odel elli ling ng NL NLP: P: Pa Part rt Fo Four urte teen en:: Re Re-M -Mod odel elli ling ng Mo Mode dell llin ing g' (Rapport 59 2002) David Gordon and Graham Dawes have written Expanding Your World: Modeling the Structure of Experience with a DVD which provides an excellent introduction to their form of modelling (2005).www.expandyourworld.net (2005).www.expandyourworld.net
SECTION 2 OF 8 Learning how to do a modelling project If this is your first attempt at conducting a modeling project (perhaps you are on an NLP Master Practitioner course) remember, your primary your primary outcome is to become familiar with the basics of NLP modelling. Whatever else you gain is a bonus. Until you have completed your first project from start to finish you will not know what is involved. Your evidence Your evidence that you have achieved your learning-to-model outcome will come in four forms, each demonstrating a higher level of competency. In our our opin opinio ion, n, demo demons nstr trat atin ing g the the minimum crit criter eria ia spec specifi ified ed belo below w fulfi fulfils ls the the requirement for NLP Master Practitioner certification anything else i s a bonus.
The MINIMUM is that you: (a) Demonstrate you have acquired a model of modelling that enables you to: - Specify, plan and implement your modelling project - Gather information appropriate to the outcome of the project - Construct and document a model from the information gathered - Test the model's effectiveness at reproducing the required results.
3
(b) Describe the difference having learned to model makes to you.
PREFERABLY you will also demonstrate that you can use the model you have constructed to reproduce results similar to your exemplar(s). CONCEIVABLY, you will demonstrate that you can devise an approach which enables others to acquire your model and facilitate them to acquire it. ULTIMATELY, you will demonstrate that the acquirers are able to reproduce results similar to your exemplar(s). WHY MODEL? David Gordon and Graham Dawes say that: Modeling is a doorway into the vast storehouse of human experience and abilities, providing access to anyone willing to turn the key. For the individual who pursues modeling, this means: • •
•
•
•
Access to an ever-widening range of new experiences and abilities. An increasing ability to bring those same experiences and abilities to others. A finer understanding of the structure underlying unwanted experiences and behaviors so that you know precisely what to change in those experiences and behaviors. Ever-increasing flexibility in your experience and responses. A growing appreciation of the beauty to be found in the patterns of human experience.
Learning to Model Modelling, and learning to model, are highly systemic processes. Modelling is a type of learning, and therefore learning to model is 'learning to learn'. You will realise very quickly that modelling is an iterative process. That is, the results of each activity feed back into other processes, which are modified by the new input. The now modified processes feed forward to the next operation, which feeds back, and so on. For example: I decide on an outcome for my modelling project. This largely determines the information I gather from my first exemplar. The learning that comes from gathering that information means I change the emphasis of my outcome. Both the revised outcome and the learning from the first gathering of information influences how I gather information from my second exemplar. This in turn may alter my outcome, it may help me to see some gaps in the information gathered from my first exemplar, 4
and will certainly influence how I gather information from my third exemplar, and so on, and so on. Learning to be comfortable with not-knowing, an abundance of information and what to pay attention to especially in the beginning of a modelling project are prerequisites for becoming a master modeller. What constitutes a modelling project? In general, almost anything that interests or excites you enough to want to acquire another way of doing, being, feeling, thinking, believing, etc. We recommend you go for something that will really make a difference in your life - and/or others' lives too. Having said that there are some practical constraints (aren't there always?): You need to have completed enough of your modelling to be able to demonstrate your learning and competence by the end of the programme. You need to choose a topic where you have sufficient access to your exemplars. And you need to remember that your primary purpose is to demonstrate you are learning how to model. The project is the primary means by which you will acquire that learning and then be able to demonstrate your learning. As a minimum, you need to show that you can model patterns of: -external behaviour -internal states -internal processes One of the most interesting parts of the process will be selecting the 'chunk size' of the project. This will require you to balance your desire to acquire some big chunk skill with the resources available within the time scales. As a general rule, people learning to model initially overestimate what they can achieve (i.e. they bite off too big a chunk) and they underestimate the value of modelling a small chunk in depth. It's OK to start with a big chunk outcome and refine it as the project progresses. In fact, it is common not to discover "the difference that makes the difference " (Gregory Bateson) until well into the process. But when you do, that piece should become the focus of the rest of your project.
5
SECTION 3 OF 8 What is a Modelling Project? Modelling is a process whereby an observer, the modeller, gathers information about the activity of a system with the aim of constructing a generalised description (a model) of how that system works. The model can then be used by the modeller and others to inform decisions and actions. The purpose of modelling is to identify 'what is' and how 'what is' works - without influencing what is being modelled. The modeller begins with an open mind, a blank sheet and an outcome to discover the way a system functions - without attempting to change it. [Note: We recognise this is an impossible outcome, since the observer, by simply observing, inevitably influences the person being observed. However this does not affect the intention of a modeller to not influence. ] Steven Pinker in How the Mind Works (p. 21) uses an analogy from the world of business to define psychology, but he could just as easily be describing the modelling process: Psychology is engineering in reverse. In forward-engineering, one designs a machine to do something; in reverse-engineering, one figures out what a machine was designed to do. Reverse-engineering is what the boffins at Sony do when a new product is announced by Panasonic, or vice versa. They buy one, bring it back to the lab, take a screwdriver to it, and try to figure out what all the parts are for and how they combine to make the device work. Pinker is not saying that people are machines; he is saying the process of making a model of human language, behaviour and perception can be likened to the process of reverse-engineering. When 'the system' being observed is a person, what usually gets modelled is behaviour that can be seen or heard (sensory modelling), or thinking processes that are described through language (conceptual modelling). Figuring out how great tennis players serve is an example of the former, while identifying their beliefs and strategies for winning is an example of the latter. The field of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) was established as a result of several modelling projects conducted by Richard Bandler and John Grinder. They, in collaboration with Judith DeLozier, Leslie Cameron-Bandler, David Gordon, Robert Dilts and others, did much of the original work to codify the process of modelling sensory and conceptual domains. We used sensory and conceptual modelling to study David Grove at work, and as a result discovered a new way of modelling never previously documented which we called Symbolic Modelling. [See Metaphors in Mind: Transformation through Symbolic Modelling by James Lawley and Penny Tompkins] 6
Definition of terms
Result
The reproducible outcome which can be described in sensory specific terms.
The model
An abstract formulation constructed from the information gathered from modelling the exemplar(s), which when actioned by an acquirer produces a similar class of results.
Exemplar
The person (or group or organisation) that consistently achieves the results the modeller is seeking to reproduce. (In the early days of NLP, also sometimes confusingly referred to as - a model .)
Modeller
The person who gathers information from the exemplar, constructs the model, and tests its effectiveness, efficiency and elegance at reproducing similar results (usually by first acquiring the model themselves, and then facilitating others to acquire it).
Acquirer
The person (usually including the modeller) who 'takes on' the model and attempts to reproduce results similar to those obtained by the exemplar.
Modelling
The process of gathering information from an exemplar, constructing a model, and testing its effectiveness at reproducing similar results (which requires someone to acquire it).
Modelling project
Both the plan for accomplishing the production and acquisition of a model, and the implementation of that plan. We distinguish five stages: 1. Preparing to model 2. Gathering information 3. Constructing a model 4. Testing the model 5. Acquiring the model 7
Self-modelling
The process of a person constructing a model of how they achieve the results they get. Facilitating the exemplar to selfmodel in Stage 2 is often a very efficient way of gathering information. At Stages 3 and 4, the modeller self-models as a way of making explicit the out-of-awareness information they have gathered. During Stage 5, the acquirer can self-model as a way of monitoring their response to acquiring an unfamiliar model.
Fundamental or universal ways humans make sense of the world 'Experience' is a unified whole. Yet to be conscious of our map of the world we categorise, evaluate, compare, decide, reason, intuit, etc. All these processes require us to delete, distort and generalise (Bandler & Grinder). The most common way to do this is to make use of one domain - usually our everyday experience of the physical world - to make sense of another domain, usually the non-physical world. In other words, we use metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson). The most commonly used metaphors, which appear to form the basis of all languages, are:
Space
Relative location. Sequence of events defined by a before, a during, and an after.
Time
Schematic of a Sequence of Events Form
Perceiver
The attributes or qualities by which something is perceived, and at the same time, distinguished from other things, i.e. how it is known. The content of our perceptions. The someone who is perceiving the something. To do this the perceiver needs a 'means of perceiving' (seeing, hearing, feeling and other ways of sensing) and a 'point of perception' (where the perception is perceived from). The perceiver is therefore always in a certain relationship with the form of the perceived within a given context (time and space). [Note: This model is our synthesis of David Grove's "Observer-Observed8
Relationship between" and John McWhirter's "FROM-TO-IN" models.]
Perceiver-Perceived-Relationship-Context (PPRC) Model
Five Stages of a Modelling Project
9
All information on this web site (unless otherwise stated) is © copyright 19972006 Penny Tompkins and James Lawley of The Developing Company. All rights reserved. You may reproduce and disseminate any of our copyrighted information for personal use only providing the original source is clearly identified. If you wish to use the material for any other reason please contact:
SECTION 4 OF 8 Stage 1: Preparing for your Modelling Project Your first task is to define your modelling project by specifying its: 10
Overall Outcome What results have you noticed other people achieve in the world that you would also like to achieve? Sensory specific evidence of completion How will you know you have got these results? How will others know you have got these results? Scope Time scale Breadth of project - what is included and what is not Contexts in which you (and others) want the results Definition of terms Value to you What's important to you about being able to consistently reproduce the results specified above? Exemplars Who consistently demonstrates the results you want? What is your evidence? How will you get access to such people? Presuppositions What are you presupposing to be true before you start? What metaphors are you using to describe your project? Your second task, is to plan how you are going to gather the relevant information. To help you do that see the article: Introducing Modelling to Organisations has a chart, The Who, Why, How, What, Where and When of Modelling which uses two of Robert Dilts' frameworks to consider a modelling project from a number of perceptual positions and Logical Levels. (First published in Rapport magazine issue 40, Summer 1998)
11
All information on this web site (unless otherwise stated) is © copyright 19972006 Penny Tompkins and James Lawley of The Developing Company. All rights reserved. You may reproduce and disseminate any of our copyrighted information for personal use only providing the original source is clearly identified. If you wish to use the material for any other reason please contact:
SECTION 5 OF 8 Stage 2: Gathering information from your exemplars Types and reliability of information It is important to distinguish between different types of information gathered from the exemplar. The following five are in descending order of reliability of information: i. Observed behaviour with sufficient repetitions to indicate a pattern ii. Observed behaviour with insufficient repetitions to indicate a pattern iii. 'Relived' descriptions or role-playing by the exemplar of what they do iv. Explanation by the exemplar (i.e. the exemplar's conscious model of what they do) v. Second-hand descriptions Ways to gather information •
•
'Live' observation of exemplar achieving their results (by 3rd position observation and 2nd position shadowing) Video or audio tapes, or material written by the exemplar which demonstrates achieving the required results
•
Face-to-face interview
•
Role-plays and mini-scenarios
•
Questionnaires
•
'Unofficial' observations
•
Written information edited or co-written by someone else
•
Description by someone else, e.g. biography
•
The general rule is, the closer (and more often) you get to observe the exemplar achieving the results in their 'natural habitat' the better.
While gathering information it is preferable that you model the exemplar's behaviour and description so that you can ask questions from within the logic of their information. 12
High-quality modelling questions tend to:
•
Make minimal presuppositions about the content of exemplar's map Be short and contain a minimal number of non-exemplar words
•
Be simple and ask for one class of experience at a time
•
•
•
•
Invite the exemplar to remain in the appropriate state to demonstrate what they do, i.e. in the 'perceptual present' Relate to the project outcome Invite the exemplar's attention to move towards the boundary of what they already know, and then to stretch the boundary into areas of yet-to-be-awareof
•
Not ask the exemplar's attention to jump too far (in space or time)
•
Not get 'no' or disagreement for an answer.
'Standard' Modelling Questions Every question directs the exemplar's attention to some where, when or what in their mindbody map. So it is important to know the type or class of information you what (i.e. to have an outcome for each question) and to what your question is inviting the exemplar's attention to do. The following are examples of some commonly used modelling questions. 1. Developing pre-existing information And is there anything else about ...? And what kind of ...? And where/whereabouts is ...? And what's the relationship between ... and ...? 2. Context(s) where and when exemplar commonly achieves the results? Where do you ...? When do you ...? 3. Desrired outcome(s) the exemplar is attempting to achieve at the time (Also, how is the outcome represented?) For what purpose do you ...? 4. Operations performed internally and externally to achieve the outcome 13
(Also, what inputs are attended to while performing these operations?) How specifically do you do that? What's the first thing you do ...? Then what do you do? What do you do next? And then what happens? And what happens just before you ...? 5. Evidence criteria/test of progress toward and completion of outcome How do you know you are achieving ...? How do you know you have achieved ...? What let's you know to ...? What determines when you ...? 6. Motivation for having outcome and enablers for doing the operations What's important to you about ...? What's important about that [answer to previous question]? What makes it possible for you to ...? And where does ... come from? 7. Range of choices available to the exemplar (What does the exemplar do in unexpected situations, when they encounter difficulties, interference or distractions - especially when these might affect whether they achieve their outcome?) What do you do if it doesn't go well / doesn't work? How do you know to stop trying to achieve ...?
SECTION 6 OF 9 14
Stage 3: Constructing Your Model When modelling multiple exemplars for a class of experience, one process for constructing your general model is to: 1. Describe how each exemplar does what they do to get the required results from their perspective and in their words; i.e. construct a model using their representations. 2. Evaluate each model (to know what extra information to gather) for: Completeness - It has all necessary distinctions/components (it's 'full') It answers 'what else?' questions with ... "nothing ". Coherency - The relationships between components adhere to an internal logic (they 'cling together'). It answers 'why?' questions from within its own logic. Consistency - It does its job across a range of contexts and acquirers (it 'stands firm'). It can answer 'what if?' questions. 3. Compare and contrast individual models component-by-component, step-by-step and function-by-function. 4. Design your own model by one or more of the following methods. (At this point you must separate the information gathered from the exemplar: It is no longer their model, it becomes your model because you will represent the information in a different way.) a. Identify similarities across exemplars and construct a composite model based on similarities. b. Use one of the models as a prototype and improve it by adding/substituting distinctions/components/steps from the other models. c. Deconstruct the individual models into the function of each component/stage and construct a new model from the bottom-up. d. Adapt existing models from other contexts that are compatible with the model you are constructing, and use them as the framework for your model (e.g. 'transformational grammar' was the basis for the Meta Model, and 'self-organising systems theory' formed the framework for Symbolic Modelling). 5. Evaluate and improve your model based on the degree to which it is: 15
Effective - It gets similar results to the exemplar. Efficient - It requires the least number of steps/components (use Occum's Razor to make it "as simple as possible, but no simpler "). Elegant - It is code congruent - the content of the model and the manner in which it is presented/coded are congruent. 6. Test, get feedback, adjust model, test again, get feedback, adjust ... More on Model Construction Evaluate whether distinctions/components go into the model by the degree to which each is: Effective - contributes to the overall outcome of the model Efficient - serves multiple functions Elegant - fits into the overall coherency (internal code congruency) and enhances the consistency (external code congruency) of the model. Evaluate the completeness of your model by the degree to which it shows 'Operational closure': •
•
•
•
•
When no new components or patterns emerge and the client's descriptions add no further information about how that operational unit works. When new components or examples continue to appear but they are isomorphic (have the same function or organisation) as previously identified patterns. When the logic of the client's description encompasses an entire configuration, a complete sequence or a coherent set of premises (with no logical gaps). When the model enables you to predict ways of dealing with unexpected situations, difficulties, interference or distractions that have yet to be mentioned by the exemplar. When you repeat or demonstrate the operational unit to the exemplar, they acknowledge that's it, you got it .
Evaluate your model for its congruency with: Stage 2: The exemplar(s) Stage 3: Itself Stage 4: The context where it will be tested Stage 5: The acquirer(s) 16
Exemplar's cannot not do their patterns of excellence A key aspect of modelling is to determine how an exemplar keeps achieving the same results. How is it that they cannot not do it? How come they don't forget to do it? How do they adjust for unfavourable circumstances so that they consistently get excellent results? In other words, how come it's habitual? This information will not be in any of the components, but in the pattern of relationships between perceptual components. It will be the circular chains (Bateson) of relationships that keep the pattern repeating. And your model needs to have comparable circular chains. Except when .. Conditions are 'extreme' or 'over thresholds' or 'off the scale' and the pattern breaks down. What are those conditions and what do exemplars do then? Considering 'Is there any way I can I run this model and do something else?' and 'Under what circumstances would I not get the required results? '. Then adapting your model to take these circumstances into account will make it more robust, more consistent.
SECTION 7 OF 8 Stage 4: Testing your Model You can get feedback, the 'gold dust' and primary purpose of testing, from: 1. The exemplars 2. Yourself 3. The 'real world' 4. Other acquirers
1. Testing your model with the exemplar a. Test the components and steps of your model for accuracy. For each exemplar, describe (in their words) as much of the model as you have of their behaviours/abilities/states and ask them to evaluate your description for accuracy. 17
Use your sensory acuity to calibrate that the pace of your description enables the exemplar to 'try on' your model of them so that they can compare it to their own model, component-by-component and step-by-step. Every response you get from your exemplar is feedback as to the accuracy of your model. They are the world's expert on their model, and at this stage, that's what you are attempting to reproduce. Anything they think is confusing, illogical, or that doesn't fit, is a signal that your model is incomplete. b. Test the logic of your model for accuracy After you have confirmation of the accuracy of your model from the exemplar, you can start to make predictions as to how the exemplar has or would 'run' their model in some as yet unspecified context. The aim is to test if your understanding of the exemplar's logic enables you to go beyond what you have been specifically told or observed. 2. Testing your model on your own 'Try on' your model by 'running it through' your system Can you run the model - from 'before' when the start Test criteria are triggered, through 'during' the Operations until the end Test criteria are met, and on to Exit 'after' (TOTE model)? Would you expect to get the required results? Does it all fit together? Can you break it - under what conditions would you not get the required results? At this stage you are only acquiring the model 'for the moment'. You are not seeking to integrate it with your pre-existing models, instead you 'put them aside' while you run your tests. In other words, you are self-modelling to obtain feedback from your own system within an 'as if' frame.
3. Testing the model for real Having had your model tested by the exemplar, and used your own neurology as a test bed, your outcome changes. You are now seeking to test the model for the degree to which you can reproduce the required results. You want to compare the results you get with the results the exemplars get. To do this you need feedback from the external world. Two ways to do this are: a. Prepare safe 'test conditions' 18
Taking into account the ecology of the wider system and depending on the potential effects of your model not working, you may want to establish some 'test conditions' in which to test it's efficacy. b. Go 'live' The ultimate personal test. Can you get similar results to your exemplars under similar conditions? And can you do that consistently and under a variety of conditions? (Steve Andreas has said that when he constructs a new model for change, i.e. a new NLP technique, he has to test it out with 20-30 clients before he is confident he has ironed out the majority of creases.) Remember, your model may work perfectly but you may not yet have enough background knowledge or experience of running it to get the same results as your exemplars. Acquiring Einstein's problem solving strategy won't make you an Einstein overnight, but you can expect it to give you access to a different way of thinking about problems and to a wider range of solutions than you had before. 4. Other acquirers testing the model If part of your modelling project is for other people (who were not involved in Stages 2-4) to make use of your model, your outcome for testing changes again. Your design for an acquisition process (Stage 5) should include testing by the acquirers. The feedback you want now is: To what degree are the results the acquirers get similar to those achieved by the exemplars. And to reiterate: Test, get feedback, adjust model, test again, get feedback, adjust ...
SECTION 8 OF 8 Stage 5: Acquiring the Model Over the history of NLP the metaphors used to describe Stage 5 have changed from: Installation of the model by the modeller in the to Transmission of the model by the modeller to the to Acquisition of the model by the acquirer (facilitated by the modeller).
acquirer acquirer
19
Interestingly, these changes seem to parallel a general trend within NLP; that is, the focus of the practitioner-client relationship is moving away from the practitioner and towards the client. Continuing this trend, our preference is for the acquirer (to be facilitated) to self-model their own process of acquiring. Acquiring presents a paradox: The exemplar gets their results largely through unconscious processes, but the acquirer initially acquires the model and uses it consciously. This is a double paradox when the skill being modelled has to be unconscious, e.g. an intuitive signal. Generalised process for acquisition Starting with a thorough understanding and experience of using your model: 1. Gather information about the acquirer's outcome, the context where they want the required results, and their existing map in relation to the model to be acquired. 2. Where possible, modify your model to align with the acquirer's existing map. 3. Design an acquisition process that includes multiple descriptions and is congruent with both the model and the exemplar's map. 4. Facilitate (or make available) the acquisition process. 5. Utilise acquirers responses - preferably in the moment - as feedback to adapt the process of acquisition to the acquirer's existing model of the world and metaphors. 6. Test: to what degree do the results the acquirers get match those of the exemplars? Some ways to present your model to an acquirer are to: Enact the activity of each step of the sequence Map components' location and their relationships/functions Chart the flow of information and decision points Physicalise or using non-verbal metaphor (Dance/Movement) Tell stories and analogies Write description and examples Facilitating the acquisition process Your primary aim is not for the acquirer to acquire your model. Your model is only a means to an end. Your joint aim is for the acquirer to reproduce the specified results.
20
As much as possible the acquirer needs to fully experience the model as they acquire it. So pay attention to whether the acquirer is replicating the model in their own mind-space and body. i.e. Do they describe it in the correct order? Do they gesture, look and move as specified by the model? Do they use the same or equivalent descriptions and metaphors? Not all components of the model will be equally important for the acquirer to acquire. Often a single piece will make a big difference. Acquiring is an iterative process. Acquirers need both big chunk information (how the model all fits together as a whole and its purpose) and small chunk information (what to do). Different acquirers will prefer to start with different aspects of the model. For example, they might first like to get know all the bits and what they do; or how the bits fit together and relate to each other; or the order in which things happen; or where and how they can use it. Time, repetition and multiple descriptions are useful allies. Common responses to acquisition According to Gordon & Dawes there are 5 common ways people do not acquire a new model (assuming they want to). In effect they indicate: I can't get out of my present model I can't get into the new model I can't make sense of the model I am concerned about the consequences of taking on the model The model does not fit with who I am One way to respectfully respond to this type of feedback is to facilitate the acquirer to self-model what is happening that means they are not acquiring the model (including how you are presenting it): 1. Fully acknowledge the way it is for them. 2. Confirm that they still want to achieve the required results. 3. Facilitate them to discover:
21
Where is the mismatch between the existing and the new model what is making that mismatch possible and what is maintaining it? When they were in similar situations and how they resolved these. What needs to happen to resolve it now. Other metaphors/descriptions/representational systems that will enable the acquirer to achieve the required results. What are other circumstances where they could use the model What 'platform' knowledge, skills or experiences are prerequisites
Notes on Expert to Novice Acquisition (24 Nov 2006) Almost by definition, exemplars are experts, while acquirers are novices. The model you construct will be of an expert who will have years of experience and lots of unconscious habitual strategies. With some much happening unconsciously, the exemplar has spare capacity to pay (conscious) attention to other things that are happening. For example, comprehending is a completely unconscious process for a native speaker, and hence they can attend to puns, patterns, double meanings and all sorts of subtle communication that is not available to the novice second-language learner. (cf. Gregory Bateson: as behaviour is repeated it becomes ever more deeply embedded in the organism, i.e. pushed down the levels of organisation) An acquirer does not have the same level of experience and so the acquisition process has to act as a bridge from the expert's way of doing things and the novice's. To do this you may well need to add in some extra steps that are not part of your exemplar's model (nor, if you have multiple exemplars, your composite model). the NLP Spelling Strategy is a good example. This model includes a step where the acquirer spells the word they are learning backwards ( Joseph O'Connor and John Seymour, Introducing NLP (1990) page 182) despite the fact expert spellers never do this. So why is it is in the strategy? When they first tried to teach the strategy to poor spellers, they found that even though they learned it, they did not believe this was enough to become a good speller. So someone had the bright idea of getting them to spell the words they were learning backwards on the basis that "If you can spell the word backwards, you know spelling it forwards will be easy." So for the spelling strategy to be useful an extra 'convincer' step had to be added. (A second advantage of the backwards spelling step is that it allows the facilitator to very easily calibrate whether the acquirer is using the required visual accessing or reverting to the less efficient auditory method with the latter it's almost impossible to spell words backwards) You also might want to add extra steps to prepare an acquirer to access a state that the exemplar switches into naturally. For example, Penny Tompkins was modelled 22
for her ability to "notice a client's nonverbal cues and subtle presuppositions of logic" when she is in therapy or coaching mode. Penny can instantly "clear my mind" and be in a very open and receptive state. She suggested that if someone else wanted to acquire her noticing ability then they might modified the SWISH technique so that they could move away all the stuff that is present for them until it is a dot on the horizon, and in it's place to bring back a "clear space" in which the client and their stuff can be situated. End!
MASTERY, NEW CODING AND SYSTEMIC NLP First published in NLP World, Volume 2 No. 1, March 1995. by Judith DeLozier
Edited by James Lawley from a presentation to The Central London NLP Group, 19 April 1993 Thank you for taking time out of your busy lives to be here tonight. What this group is doing here really does remind me of how NLP started in the first place. There are not very many places I've been in the world where the community spirit of NLP is creating what you are creating here. And that is a really wonderful thing and you all do yourselves proud. It makes me want to cry because this is what I want to see happening. I was asked to write something for a brochure and I want to read it to you, "The discipline known as NLP began, before it had a name, with an interdisciplinary community of people. [Richard Bandler, John Grinder, Leslie Cameron, Mary Beth Megus, David Gordon, Robert Dilts, and myself, to name but a few.] We were motivated by a shared curiosity about how we know, about how we learn, how we communicate, and how we change. And how we can influence the process of change in a well-formed, ecological way. The patterns of NLP were not imparted to us, but unfolded in our learning." I want you to be aware of just how special what you are doing is. That you can get together on a regular basis and unfold knowledge in this group. Because it really is about unfolding knowledge in a group of people coming from different models of the 23
world. So, bravo to you. I will carry this around the world and let them know what you are doing here. In The Beginning I want to tell you a little bit about myself. My background is in religious studies and anthropology. I got involved in NLP about the time the book, The Structure of Magic was just a manuscript. My friend, John Grinder, brought it to me, and said, "Read this, and tell me what you think." And I read the book, and I said, "You know, this is a really nice thing for people to hang their experience on. This could really help people to make sense of things that happen to them in the world that they don't have any way to express. It's a really nice structure". It was that particular setting, called the University of Santa Cruz, which really allowed us to do what we were doing. The Dean of the University at that time had a vision: to create a context where interdisciplinary ideas and different models of the world could come together in a creative way to produce new possibilities. What I want to talk about tonight is the idea of mastery in NLP, especially with respect to New Code NLP. "New Coding" is what I call it. It is another description and actually has about seven different pieces to it. I also want to touch on the development of Systemic NLP. Old Coding There was the first description of NLP, Old Coding as I call it, which unfolded out of the disciplines of linguistics, Gestalt Therapy, and systems theory. This yielded the language patterns (The Meta Model) and their connection with the deep structure of experience which in turn yielded the ideas of Representational Systems and submodalities, strategies, separating intent from behaviour, and all the permutations we can do with these codings in order to create technology; call it six-step reframing, change personal history, anchoring, or visual/kinesthetic disassociation. And a lot came out of the answer to one question: "How do you know?" The epistemological question. People would say, "Oh, I'm going to the show tonight." And we would ask, "How do you know?" We began to notice that they made eye movements, and we would wonder what was going on. And they would say, "Well, I can see myself going to the show." And we found out that they really do see something. We started connecting together the patterns of physiology, of language and of internal state. Once you understand the level of what patterns are involved, you can create your own patterns. People would go out with just the meta model and start meta modelling the hell out of people. They couldn't understand why they were losing all their friends! They were viewing NLP as technology, as a procedure which I call a ritual. There is no wisdom in a piece of technology. Wisdom has to be in the carrier of that information. John Grinder and myself thought, "How are we going to get people to start thinking about where is the wisdom?" and that is how Turtles All The Way Down: Prerequisites to Personal Genius got written in 1984. New Coding 24
The second description, or New coding, developed from different roots; John Grinder's and my own understanding of NLP, Gregory Bateson's work with information theory and biology, the books of Carlos Castaneda about the Yacqui Way, and our African experience of drumming, dancing, singing and story-telling in the Congo. So we took these ideas, and we asked, "How can we give another description of what already has been specified in this other code?" And we came up with a series of about seven elements. (1) State One description is state. Just looking at the idea of state alone. What is the state that you would develop to model excellence in the world? We asked, what are the pieces that go into developing a quality state for modelling, and what are the things we can do to have a choice about our state, and to manage our state on the problem side, as well as the evolutionary and generative side for ourselves? That was the first piece. And then we went out and began to look at people who had done interesting modelling projects, like Carlos Castaneda. What they had in common was using what I call the 'nerk-nerk' state. A state of 'not knowing' -- when you don't know... yet. You're gathering information in the system. You have intuitions about it but you don't know what it is that you know. As soon as you have an intuition, someplace in there knows something; it just has not come into consciousness. The pattern has not presented itself yet. But if you wait, and the pattern continues to happen, it will. This connects with Gregory Bateson's idea that there are always two ways of knowing. There's knowing in the unit of mind, and then there is knowing cognitively what we know. There is also understanding the relationship between those two. In modelling mastery, certain patterns began to emerge. One being the idea of state management, that a person has tools to maintain the qualities in their breathing, physiology, representation and beliefs that support the outcome of demonstrating mastery or excellence in the world. For example, as you sit there, place tension in your shoulders, sit off balance; allow your shoulders to press towards your ears. A typical stress state. How is your breathing? Is this a comfortable state? Do you find the physiology useful for learning? Where is your attention? What beliefs about learning do you maintain in this state? Now change position, move a little, maybe stand up and sit down again. Find a balanced comfortable position. Go through the body and release any excess tension, breathe and repeat the questions above. Which state is more conducive to learning? Another pattern we discovered is how to have the highest quality contact with the model. It requires a state where a person drops the filters of internal dialogue, foveal vision and excess tension. This is a very clear state, sometimes referred to as the uptime trance. It is a state in which we have interfaced our attention with the model where patterns are to be placed in our neurology and later extracted for the purpose of building a transferable code. A modelling state is quiet, without internal dialogue, uses peripheral vision, not foveal vision.
25
(2) Conscious-Unconscious Relationship What else did those people do? Well, they had a really interesting quality relationship between conscious and unconscious. What we call first attention and second attention. Whatever that small piece is that we call consciousness, that feeds back into the larger unit, affects the quality of the relationship. These people said they were continuing to find ways to enhance and develop the quality of that relationship. With the understanding that you never "get there", that it is an ongoing process, an evolution which enhances as time goes by. How many people have done something called a "second-position shift"? Most of the group. Do you remember the first time you did it compared to the last time? Is the quality much different? Would you say that each time you do it, it goes up in quality? Well, that is what I'm talking about. So what kind of mechanisms do you have that continually develop this relationship? How many people meditate? How many people pray? How many people do self-hypnosis? How many people do something that requires that the whole unit of mind act in a one hundred percent and honest way, as Gregory Bateson would say? Gregory also recognised that masters of anything have a highly developed quality relationship between their conscious and unconscious resources. In his words, a master knows when to use the tight thinking of the cognitive conscious mind, and when to use the loose thinking of the more creative unconscious mind. Take Milton Erickson's metaphor of the horse and the rider. The horse being our unconscious mind and the rider being our conscious mind. Of course all of us who have ridden a horse know what happens when the rider wants to go in one direction and the horse another. Neither one easily reaches their destination and it requires a lot of time and uses up a lot of energy. So that was the second part of mastery and the New Coding. (3) Balance Between Practice and Spontaneity The third idea was, how do I balance between practice and spontaneity? Which is also very much connected with conscious and unconscious relationship. NLP is about having outcomes. So do you have a time when your outcome is not to have an outcome? Or if I go down south of the border to Mexico, they would say, "Judy, it's very important to go to the Land of Not Doing." Do you have that understanding in your life, to say "Yes, I learn these rituals called NLP. I learn these techniques, learn these tools, I come places like this and I practice them. I learn, I unfold in the world"? And there comes a point when it is so deep in your behaviour that you let it all go and act completely spontaneously. At this moment there is no self reflection: "Now, I wonder if their eyes are going to go up to the right, I wonder if they're going to go down to the left." There is only the systemic loop. I like the Aikido metaphor: you are on the mat and you practice and you practice, and when you go to meet an opponent you are not going to stop and talk to yourself. You are not even going to decide beforehand what manoeuvre to use. You really can't know until you interface with the opponent, because this is a dance with the outside world.
26
(4) Perceptual Positions Number four is perceptual positions. Gregory said, "It takes two to know one". And we said, "We'll go for three." At the same time we got together with Robert Dilts, and he told us "I did this interesting thing the other day. I had somebody with a phobia. I asked them to take the perceptual position of the thing they were afraid of, and the most amazing thing happened: that snake was really scared too." So, we were both on to the same thing. And then we began to think about the fact that, well, there is my position, there is your position, and then there is a third or neutral position, where it is only information. I have found that for some of us, this is the difficult one. We would go there, and we didn't want to say, "Well, it's only information." We wanted to say, "God, how stupid. I can't believe I did that." This is making sense of a pattern at another level. I can now see a bigger part of the world and understand it from a different position than when I was caught in first position or even when I occupied a second. From third position I can see the dance. Characterlogical Adjectives How many know about "characterlogical adjectives"? Think of someone you have a difficult time communicating with; a situation that is certainly not a creative or productive interaction. It is not a love-based communication. It doesn't bring out the best in you. You feel stuck in some way. Got anybody like that? Now imagine this is a movie theatre. See the person up there on the screen behaving the way they behave, and give me a word to describe their behaviour. "Self Absorbed." "Aggressive." OK. So this is a descriptor. Given all those bits of information of how this person is behaving, this is the way you would describe them. So now take a big, deep breath and see yourself up there in the loop with this person. Now you are in third position. It's only information. And now, there you are, behaving the way you behave. What are the words you would use to describe your behaviour? "Withdrawn." So they are self-absorbed, and you are withdrawn. "Defensive." They are aggressive and you are defensive. Makes sense. If we put the Batesonian filter on it we are getting the difference between symmetrical escalating relationships and one that is complementary. You begin to see your part in the dance. They wouldn't have any fun doing it by themselves and neither would you. This is what systems are about: getting a big enough piece of the interaction so that you can step back and say, "Oh, now I understand how I'm dancing with this person" and realise what choices you have of getting out of the dance. From this position you can ask, "What, when I step back in there with this information, can make a difference to the 27
quality of that interaction?" Knowing that if one part of the system begins to move, the whole system is going to move. Those perceptual positions then began to trigger off a whole set of other possibilities and it began to connect back to the meta model. Take the cause-effect pattern. When I think of how a pattern demonstrates itself in my life, I begin to understand the part I play, the part they play, and if I go to blame, or where I feel blamed, I realise it is a cause-effect relationship. Creativity There is another way of using perceptual positions that is really fun to do if we think about it in terms of creativity. Think of a piece of art that has really moved you in your life. It wasn't just something you looked at and said, "Oh, that's cool." Rather a piece of art that you felt deep inside your soul. This is being in the position of appreciating that art from the perceptual position of the viewer, or hearing a piece of music, or watching a dance. Now take the position of the artist who created it. When you occupy that perceptual position, begin to use the implicit muscle movements of the painter, the sculptor or the composer in order to access similar kinds of neurology in yourself. It is there, it is just that you haven't activated it in yourself in a long time. Take the pygmy in the forest who has never been outside and seen the horizon. He is built to see horizons but he has never been in an environment that stimulates the nerves in the eyes in order to understand that difference. Things that are far away from him look really tiny, so he thinks they are bugs when they are really buffaloes! Going to second position is a way in which we can start to stimulate that neurology within ourselves. Then you can stand back and ask, "What are the differences between being a perceiver of this art and being the creator?" And, "Gee, do I have different beliefs when I'm there compared to when I'm here? Do I have different beliefs about my ability to be creative?" I bet you do. So the idea of perceptual positions is that out of this dance of multiple perspectives, wisdom may begin to unfold. To really consider the movement from my personal map to an understanding of your personal map and then to an objective position of the relationship gives us a basis of wisdom. (5) Attention The fifth description has to do with attention. How I use my attention, where I put my attention and how I get it back. This happens in very small ways and it also happens in larger ways that serve as a metaphor. As soon as I focus my attention on one place, large amounts of the world are deleted somewhere else and this connects to the meta model pattern called deletion. Am I fixing my attention so tightly, even when I am doing NLP, that I am fixated on eye movements and missing a whole lot of other information? If I get so focused on someone's necklace that I don't notice the beautiful colour of her eyes, I am doing a disservice to her. Then if I make a 28
hallucination about this woman based on the necklace I could land on the Island of Conclusion and spend a lot of time trying to get off! What happens if you move your attention to listening to the sound of the birds while you are interacting with a person? Does it drive your attention in a different way? Does it inform your behaviour in a way that is more creative? Does it make a difference? If your attention is in a certain representational system, with certain submodalities, what happens if you change just one aspect? You can change something very small, or very big. For example, here I am communicating with somebody, and I become... a woman from Honduras. Does it make a difference? Have you read the story of 'The Phantom Tollbooth'? The part that I liked is about the race of people who, when they are born, float around at the height that they are going to be when they are fully grown. They then grow down to the ground. And that is so that they never have to change their perspective. If we use characterlogical adjectives again, we can apply the idea of attention to discover how it might be driving the relational loop. For example, while in the interaction, I can notice where my attention is fixed, i.e. on a voice tone, a gesture, a facial expression, an internal sensation. I may discover how fixing my attention on some small aspect of the interaction is driving my state to a value judgment that may make the interaction uncreative, difficult or problematic. The idea is to discover where I fix my attention, to move it to some other aspect of the interaction and, of course, to notice if the quality of the interaction changes in a positive direction. This is another way of looking at the system; sometimes I want to chunk it down into small pieces, and sometimes I want to look at the big picture. Along that continuum of possibility there are places where I can begin to influence the system in a positive direction, with the least amount of effort for myself and the other person. (6) Filters My mother used to say to me, "Judy, if you walk through life with a hammer in your hand, you're going to see a lot of nails." She was teaching me about filters. If you sort the world in a certain way, that is what you are going to see, and if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got. Did you ever play 'Slug Bug?' The family would go out driving and the game was for the first person who saw a Volkswagen to shout "Slug bug". Of course, as soon as you put on the filter to sort for Volkswagens, they were everywhere. We are designed to filter information. A big filter could be a belief. Something becomes believable to me because I sort the information in a certain way. If I am sorting for just certain information, I am going to connect that with my deeper experience and think, "Ah ha, I'm right. I believe this now." So not only is it important to look at belief systems and filters, it is also important to look at disbelief systems. If I maintain a certain filter and I do not have a way of moving my attention outside of that filter, then it is very easy to have the deeper experiences that are going to build a belief based on just that one filter. What mechanisms and processes do you have that allow you to move your attention around, to create opportunity, to ask, "What 29
else is out there?" Because it is the differences that are going to be what makes the difference. In parts of the United States there is not much distinction between discomfort and difference. I grew up in Oklahoma where the attitude was, "There's a difference. Shoot it." You got your membership to the National Rifleshooter's Association at the same time you got your driver's license. These were really wonderful people but there was not a lot of moving around of those filters and accepting of difference. And the world is changing now. We can talk about filtering philosophically: "Am I really seeing what is in the world or am I seeing what is happening in the back of my brain?" But it is more useful to ask, "What are the filters that we can potentially let go of?" Then we find the edges of our map that allow us to know there is more territory on the other side. Most of us think of what is on the other side of that edge as uncomfortable, as opposed to merely different. Take the difference between a person having stage fright and a person really being frightened. There are certain physiological signals for both experiences. There are certain parts that are the same and there are other parts that are very different. Being able to find those small disparities in those states is a beginning of dropping certain filters. Am I seeing this person as directly as I can, or do I already have a set of filters, of hallucinations, about this person? As Don Juan's Castaneda said, every baby is born a sorcerer, every baby is born in the nerk-nerk state, not knowing... completely open to all possibilities. And then comes foveal vision and language. Those two big filters begin to get fixed. That fixing is a relationship between language, the external world and what happens internally as the child builds that deeper structure. If the rules in that deeper structure have relationships like cause-effect, nominalization, huge deletions, over-generalisations, then there are natural consequences for the child. How many people speak more than one language? Do you feel different when you speak that other language? This is one way that you adopt certain filters. Politics is another, so is religion, male/female, and animate/inanimate. Just because I can't see this chair moving does not mean that it is not moving. It is just that I do not have the apparatus to notice. You can't know what you can't know, but knowing that, you can begin to build a belief that operates at another level. If I know that I don't know, then what kind of things can I do to move my filters so that I can discover the edges of my map? We used to say, everything that you have never seen looks the same. InWinnie the Pooh , there is this great line, "The more Piglet looked, the more Pooh wasn't there." It's a question of knowing that and then saying, "What sorts of arrangements can I make in my life to move myself to the edge so the surrounding unknown becomes available?" (7) Multiple Descriptions The last description is descriptions themselves. Multiple descriptions of the world, as opposed to just perceptual positions. Take this whole thing called NLP; how many other ways can I describe this? Where could I go to get another description? Myself, having studied anthropology, I like to go to another culture, because I have this 30
intuition. I have this intuition that we're all members of the same species. I say intuition because I am still questioning New Yorkers! Could be divergent evolution! There are places where we are the same. And there are places where we are different. What makes us the same is that we are members of the same species. We occupy the same form, we have language, we have the same neurology. We have different ways of carving it up, different ways of talking about it, and in different parts of the world we pay attention to different things. Active Dreaming Exercise I'm going to give you a little exercise to allow you to experience New Coding. It comes from the native Americans and is called active dreaming. It is like dreaming when you are awake and is a way of solving problems and of having a good time. It uses the modelling state, focus of attention, filters and triple description to gather information from the larger unit of mind. i. First set an intention or take on a filter. Say you have a big decision coming up, or you have a problem you want to solve. This is what you are asking the larger unit of mind to filter information about. ii. The second thing is to go into a state of not knowing, or the nerk-nerk state. It has the following characteristics: No internal dialogue; peripheral rather than foveal vision; and no excess tension. Going through the system and checking for tension is really good, I call this 'cleaning' quality states. The idea is to go through and check: Is there tension in the system and does it need to be there? Because when you start to 'try' you feel your shoulders going up, your attention starts to constrict, and the harder you try the more it constricts. Not everything has to be relaxed. You might want a little tension - it lets you know you are alive - but not too much. iii. Then take a walk in this state. You are open to whatever happens and ready to notice when the outside world offers you a symbol. I find it usually takes five to ten minutes for a symbol to pop into my awareness. The symbol may be visual, auditory, or that you step in a mud puddle! You are just available to it. There are two ways to think about this. The western way would say that the unconscious mind just grabbed a symbol of importance. The native American would say that the universe just offered you a gift. Both beautiful perspectives, but different perspectives. Remember to walk with grace and ease. iv. Assume the symbol is relevant to your original intention, decision or problem. Then, become the symbol. Go to second position with the symbol. Ask yourself, "If I am the symbol, what characteristics would I have?" For instance, if a particular tree very clearly popped into my awareness, this is my symbol. If I was that tree, what are my characteristics as that tree? I could be firmly planted, flexible on top, have birds build their nests in me with little animals coming to visit. v. Then go to third position, as an observer, a witness. And from third position, notice the relationship between the information carried in the symbol and your intention. How does the intention and the symbolic information connect? How does my thinking change with this new information? Perhaps I discover ways to become more flexible 31
with respect to my intent; perhaps I change my perception of time and that will be the key that makes a difference. For me, the outcome for this exercise is to discover information. I want to use my consciousness to set the intent because that is where the problem is perceived. It presupposes that the lines are open to the larger unit of mind. Also it is a vehicle to continue to deepen the connection between conscious and unconscious.
Systemic NLP We can create further descriptions by taking Old Coding and New Coding and asking how are they the same, how are they different and how do they interact with each other? What we get are the underpinnings for Systemic NLP. And I think a really big part of what is happening globally is connected to when pictures of the earth started to come back from outer space. We could actually see the whole world, a perspective we have never had before. We know that there are boundaries and countries down there, frontiers you have to go through, but from up here, they are not there. There is just one big, continuous place. And that is when we began to get other things spontaneously happening in science -- like chaos theory, like fractal geometry, and all those other things that are happening in physics. When you have a way to move yourself, change filters, notice when you are in a loop with another person, recognise you're using characterlogical adjectives; when you are in there, when you are communicating with that person, where is your attention? And if you move it somewhere else does it make a difference? That is the only point. When these descriptions start to interact, you get Systemic NLP, which is just starting to develop. When I go right back to the beginning, NLP is systemic anyway. "Systemic" means this whole unit of mind. But then when I start to code it, it becomes not so systemic. Right? Because coding is never this whole unit of mind, i t is only what consciousness can pull out and say, "Well, this will represent this, and this will represent that." Coding. That is the paradox. As soon as we code something, is it systemic anymore? At what level do we have to go to in our thinking to maintain the systemic nature of it? For me, there is not any new meaning we discover, rather it is something that we have sort of forgotten and need to recover. The question is then, how do we put it back in the body? We look at how the system emerges naturally. We look at how the system punctuates itself naturally. We look at how it goes out of bounds and then rebalances itself naturally. That is holistic, that is systemic. And I think this really is the next challenge for NLP.
References:
32
Richard Bandler and John Grinder, The Structure of Magic I and II, Science and Behaviour Books, Inc., Palo Alto, California, 1975 and 1976. Gregory Bateson, Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity, New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979. Judith DeLozier and John Grinder, Turtles All the Way Down: Prerequisites to Personal Genius, 1077 Smith Grade, Bonny Doon, California, 95060: Grinder, DeLozier & Associates 1987. Article about the origin and the history of The NLP Group: Building Community with NLP © Judith DeLozier, 1995
Judith DeLozier is one of the co-founders of NLP and co-developer of New Code NLP. She has co-authored: NLP Volume 1; Patterns of Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D., Volume 2; Turtles all the Way Down; and Leaves Before the Wind. Judith is an internationally renowned trainer who combines NLP with her interest in culture, creativity and dance. She can be contacted at The NLP University, www.nlpu.com James Lawley is a certified NLP Trainer, NLP Psychotherapist registered with the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy, past Chair of the The Association for NLP Psychotherapy and Counselling Section (ANLP PCS) and co-founder of The Central London NLP Group. The Central London NLP Group - London is an independent NLP Practice and Support Group that meets every Tuesday and Thursday. It was founded in 1991 by James Lawley, Penny Tompkins, Sandra Ridolfi and John Goldman. It provides an opportunity for beginners to Master Practitioners to enhance their NLP skills, learn about advances in NLP, use NLP for personal development, to network and have fun. Anyone visiting London is welcome to drop in. Details of forthcoming events and opportunities to present to the Group can be obtained from the group's web site: www.nlplondon.com
All information on this web site (unless otherwise stated) is © copyright 19972007 Penny Tompkins and James Lawley of The Developing Company. All rights reserved. You may reproduce and disseminate any of our copyrighted information for personal use only providing the original source is clearly identified. If you wish to use the material for any other reason please contact: Penny Tompkins and James Lawley @ The Developing Company 33
Tel/Fax in UK: 0845 3 31 35 31 * International Tel/Fax: +44 845 3 31 35 31 Thank you for your interest in this web site: www.cleanlanguage.co.uk Return to Site Index for many more articles.
First posted on this site 9 March 1998. Last modified 31 May 2002.
What Makes a Modeller? Judy Rees discusses modelling with experts James Lawley and Penny Tompkins
Modelling is at the heart of NLP: it’s the methodology that leaves behind the field’s famous “trail of techniques”. But for many students of NLP, challenged to undertake a modelling project as part of their Master Practitioner course, it can be something of a puzzle. I’m sure I’m not alone in struggling to get started, overwhelmed by competing methodologies on the one hand, and baffled by the missing links in trainers’ stories of Bandler, Grinder and the “wild days” on the other. What actually makes a great modeller? Penny Tompkins and James Lawley should know. They are not only expert modellers themselves, but have undertaken a number of modelling projects in which they have modelled great modellers. They have studied with many of NLP’s best-known modellers – including John Grinder, Robert Dilts, John McWhirter, David Gordon and Graham Dawes – and have been involved in a huge range of modelling projects. Modelling has become a habit for them, to the extent that Penny said: “We almost can’t not model nowadays”. In their first major modelling project, the couple modelled psychotherapist David Grove, creator of Clean Language. What began as a one-year commitment extended to four years before they eventually published their book, Metaphors in Mind , in 2000. A breakthrough moment came when they realised that Grove wasn’t trying to change his clients – he was modelling their inner landscapes – a process Penny and James called “symbolic modelling”. Now, as psychotherapists themselves, they model their own clients’ inner worlds and help them to discover more about themselves, how they do what they do, and how they can have more choice – to “self-model”. As trainers, they model their students’ learning processes. Recently, they modelled well-known NLP modeller Robert Dilts over the course of a weekend, as part of an event organised by Fran Burgess and Derek Jackson of the Northern School of NLP. The
34
results of that project are now available in a comprehensive report – including video clips and transcripts - on their website.
What is Modelling? 'Modelling' in NLP has very little to do with either Naomi Campbell, or building miniature plastic aeroplanes! It’s more akin to scientific modelling: Wikipedia describes this as “the process of generating a model as a conceptual representation of some phenomenon”. But there are wheels within wheels. In NLP, modelling is typically viewed as a process whereby a modeller: •
identifies an exemplar (a person, or people who exemplify some desired behaviour or skill);
•
gathers information about what the exemplar does;
•
constructs a model of how they do that;
•
tests whether using the model gets similar results to the exemplar.
•
goes on to use the model themselves, or facilitates others (acquirers) to learn how to apply the model.
There are lots of ways of doing each stage. Penny and James distinguish between this process, “product modelling”, and the related process of “therapeutic modelling”. In the latter, a therapist constructs a working, in-the-moment model of their client’s “model of the world”, which they use to guide their interventions. This may be held more or less consciously by the therapist – there is no need to formalise it, to write it down, or to share it. For a number of articles about modelling including “How to do a modelling project” seewww.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/categories/Modelling/
Levels of modelling
When Penny and James were modelling David Grove, there were multiple levels of modelling going on. •
The client was learning more about themselves – self-modelling
•
Grove was learning about his client’s inner world – therapeutic modelling
•
Penny and James were creating a model of Grove’s process with a view to making his skill available to others – product modelling. 35
It seems that they’ve come a long way. As they explained, when they began their work with David Grove, they realised that most of what was known about NLP modelling was implicit. John Grinder and Richard Bandler had written up the results of their early modelling, but not how they did it. So Penny and James had to “reverse engineer” how the founders of NLP had done it before applying that learning to their modelling of Grove. To make things worse, Grove was a very reluctant exemplar! He initially agreed to be modelled only on condition that he didn’t have to answer any questions and that they didn’t mimic what he was doing. They could attend his seminars, but only as ordinary participants. Gradually, he became curious about what they were doing and became a close friend. But he remained reluctant to answer questions about what he was doing. When he eventually agreed to be interviewed, it had to be in a hot tub, with the recording equipment well out of sight. James said: “So much of him was out there running around in the client’s landscapes that he didn’t spend time self-reflecting on his own internal processes.” In contrast, Robert Dilts was an enthusiastic subject, who loved to talk about his modelling process – as befits the author of Modelling with NLP . By the time Penny and James modelled him, they had had plenty of practice and knew better than to try to model his entire process in a few hours. Instead they selected a small part to pay attention to – how he selects “what is essential” while modelling. It’s a superb NLP modelling pedigree. If anyone can help those struggling Master Prac students, it’s Penny and James. I should declare an interest. I’ve been an avid student of Penny and James’s work for several years, and would happily interview them about modelling for hours. In doing so, I’m a modeller, too. And in this article, we have two pages – and that brings me up against the modeller’s dilemma. I have many pages of notes, two hours of audio recording. What do I select, from all the information I have, to include in my “model”. What’s essential? And how I can I best present the model so that you, the reader, are able to use it? As James observed, this part of the modelling process can feel almost violent: after making pristine observations of your exemplar’s words and actions, you now find yourself changing them to make them easier for others to adopt. And every newly-created model is born of the modeller’s map: it draws on the modeller’s knowledge and experience, and is ultimately limited by their imagination and other mental capacities. So, I’ve selected one key piece, which I think you’ll find interesting because it’s new, and because it provides something which many NLPer will find useful and relevant. It’s a new model, which Penny and James have not published before. And it encapsulates Penny and James’ learning from various modelling projects over the years. It’s a list of the core skills required of a good modeller. •
Outcome orientation, having a strong sense of what your purpose is in conducting a particular modelling project and being able to maintain that while navigating the unfamiliar 36
