adrian r wrote:

Cut to the chase: it worked, and I have continued to pick up on the evidence of peoples' belief systems since then, whether in a 'helping people' context or a modelling one. So: am I wrongheaded? Is it possible to model purely through a state in which I know nothing, or at any rate believe that's the case? Or does working with beliefs make the process of modelling easier?

I think it depends on what you're modelling. Grinder hasn't claimed to be able to model everything with his form of NLP modelling, but he suggests that analytical modelling, when used in place of NLP modelling and where NLP modelling is a valid option, will yield 'lower hanging fruit'. So I guess the know nothing state style of modelling is a preference (for some), but sensibly, only where it's applicable.

"Grinder hasn't claimed to be able to model everything with his form of NLP modelling"?

He may not have "claimed" it, but he sure as hell has suggested it - if not by precise or explicit words, then by hardly ever giving space to the alternative. And by acting "as if" his is the only method.

And if he hasn't explicitly suggested his way is the only way, his shills - like Renee, here - and his bagmen, they sure have.

Dr Grinder has never (to the best of my knowledge) drawn up an explicit exemplar list of the kind of things his version may be able to do.

Or put up next to it an explicit exemplar list of the kind of things it can't do.

And in so not doing, he has misled people.

For example, he told one woman on the WITW forum that she could learn to paint like any given living, famous artist if she just did DTI with the artist, got into the state, and then worked from there.

This is just bollocks.

He's suggesting you could model/ replicate what Jenny Saville does, for example, by just physically modelling her? You wouldn't, for example, need to know how to "hold a brush"? You wouldn't need to know art history the way Ms Saville knows art history? You wouldn't need to know her influences?

Sheer, over-extended nonsense.

"he [Dr Grinder] suggests that analytical modelling, when used in place of NLP modelling ... "

And the pragmatic implication here from Renee the Shill is that

(1) the choice is between "analytic modelling" and Dr Grinder's form of modelling, and that

(2) his form of modelling is the ONE AND ONLY, THE TRUE nlp modelling.

Even more bollocks.

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”
He said, “Nobody loves me.”
I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.”
I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me, too! What franchise?”
He said, “Baptist”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.


with respect and awe to Mr Emo Phillips

If anyone is wondering why Eric never runs short of bile when it comes to John Grinder, I don't really know because I've never asked him but perhaps pages 105 and 106 of "Whispering in the Wind" provide a clue.

ericrobbie wrote:

"Grinder hasn't claimed to be able to model everything with his form of NLP modelling"?

He may not have "claimed" it, but he sure as hell has suggested it - if not by precise or explicit words, then by hardly ever giving space to the alternative. And by acting "as if" his is the only method.

I'm not sure of the reference but again in WITW Grinder does explicitly state that the NLP Modelling method does have limitations.

"his method" is actually adeletion, since it' the method used by Bandler AND Grinder in creating part of the meta model and the milton model.

Peter Salisbury will probably have something to say about this - and is no doubt an excellent source of information on Grinder's modelling method as he is currently engaged in an extensive project with Grinder. I know for a fact that Peter recognises the value of many forms of modelling and quotes Grinder as saying similar.

ericrobbie wrote:

And if he hasn't explicitly suggested his way is the only way, his shills - like Renee, here - and his bagmen, they sure have.

How have I done this ? Surely the post of mine you are quoting does the opposite - although I recognise this probably depends on which filter you choose to view it through.

ericrobbie wrote:

Dr Grinder has never (to the best of my knowledge) drawn up an explicit exemplar list of the kind of things his version may be able to do.

Or put up next to it an explicit exemplar list of the kind of things it can't do.

Clearly this is not the same as saying the NLP modelling method works for everything.

ericrobbie wrote:

And in so not doing, he has misled people.

A personal interpretation of yours Eric.

ericrobbie wrote:

For example, he told one woman on the WITW forum that she could learn to paint like any given living, famous artist if she just did DTI with the artist, got into the state, and then worked from there.

This is just bollocks.

He's suggesting you could model/ replicate what Jenny Saville does, for example, by just physically modelling her? You wouldn't, for example, need to know how to "hold a brush"? You wouldn't need to know art history the way Ms Saville knows art history? You wouldn't need to know her influences?

Sheer, over-extended nonsense.

I haven't seen this nor the context in which he was responding. Having attended his modelling course and heard him speak on modelling numerous times, this is not consistent with my understanding of his ideas on modelling.

ericrobbie wrote:

"he [Dr Grinder] suggests that analytical modelling, when used in place of NLP modelling ... "

And the pragmatic implication here from Renee the Shill is that

(1) the choice is between "analytic modelling" and Dr Grinder's form of modelling, and that

(2) his form of modelling is the ONE AND ONLY, THE TRUE nlp modelling.

Err ... nonsense Eric - this is simply weak thinking or argumentation on your part.

ericrobbie wrote:

Even more bollocks.

When everything begins to look bad Eric - maybe it's a signal to wipe the shit out of your eye

He may not have "claimed" it, but he sure as hell has suggested it - if not by precise or explicit words, then by hardly ever giving space to the alternative. And by acting "as if" his is the only method.

Mind read possibly, Eric?

Dr Grinder has never (to the best of my knowledge) drawn up an explicit exemplar list of the kind of things his version may be able to do.

I believe that some people call it NLP.

Or put up next to it an explicit exemplar list of the kind of things it can't do.

It brings the belief debate full circle- but how can you really know that you can't do something until you've exhausted every option and tried?

He's suggesting you could model/ replicate what Jenny Saville does, for example, by just physically modelling her? You wouldn't, for example, need to know how to "hold a brush"? You wouldn't need to know art history the way Ms Saville knows art history? You wouldn't need to know her influences?

Having not had the pleasure of meeting some exemplars of fields who are now sadly deceased, for example, like Milton Erickson...i wasn't able to model him directly. However, through a refined and elegant set of codings- I manage to make a living and faciliate change in people as a hypnotherapist. I have no real concrete understanding of neuroscience, I certainly don't know a huge amount about depression beyond my day to day experiences with clients and my relatively small reading patterns and I certainly don't know for sure who Milton's influences were to a T. Still seem to get results though.....

ericrobbie wrote:

"Grinder hasn't claimed to be able to model everything with his form of NLP modelling"?

He may not have "claimed" it, but he sure as hell has suggested it - if not by precise or explicit words, then by hardly ever giving space to the alternative. And by acting "as if" his is the only method.

And if he hasn't explicitly suggested his way is the only way, his shills - like Renee, here - and his bagmen, they sure have.

Dr Grinder has never (to the best of my knowledge) drawn up an explicit exemplar list of the kind of things his version may be able to do.

Or put up next to it an explicit exemplar list of the kind of things it can't do.

And in so not doing, he has misled people.

For example, he told one woman on the WITW forum that she could learn to paint like any given living, famous artist if she just did DTI with the artist, got into the state, and then worked from there.

This is just bollocks.

He's suggesting you could model/ replicate what Jenny Saville does, for example, by just physically modelling her? You wouldn't, for example, need to know how to "hold a brush"? You wouldn't need to know art history the way Ms Saville knows art history? You wouldn't need to know her influences?

Sheer, over-extended nonsense.

"he [Dr Grinder] suggests that analytical modelling, when used in place of NLP modelling ... "

And the pragmatic implication here from Renee the Shill is that

(1) the choice is between "analytic modelling" and Dr Grinder's form of modelling, and that

(2) his form of modelling is the ONE AND ONLY, THE TRUE nlp modelling.

Even more bollocks.

If I am even to have half a chance of having a balanced view of the "other side" you will have to at least offer this New code infested "shill" an articulated chance to do so. What are people supposed to make of this apart from unprofessional mud slinging?

The pen is mightier than the sword

How about focusing on the content of Eric's communication rather than its form?

With that in mind, regarding the comments about the impossibility of modelling some artists without a (conscious, content-rich) understanding of the presuppositions they bring to their work, I'm reminded of what happened when western jazz musicians interacted with Indian ones in the 60s.

What seemed like the kind of musical free-for-all the likes of Archie Shepp and Ornette Coleman were experimenting with back in the States was not in fact what the Indians were doing. In the Indian tradition, those improvisations do indeed have a structure -- the ragas they play have different forms according to what time of day they're performed.

Sometimes, you've got to be super-careful about what you think you're experiencing. Ravi Shankar, playing at the concert for Bangladesh that George Harrison and his peers were involved with, was surprised to be applauded for the tuning up he did before actually performing.

adrian r wrote:

How about focusing on the content of Eric's communication rather than its form?

I'm not sure whether this is sarcasm or a genuine question? I'm tempted to leap into a rant about content of who - the co - creators and the so called bagmen but I will hold off for clarification. Even in the event of clarification i'm not entirely sure it matters to me personally. Why get caught up in personal history and competition when disagreement is healthier from a conceptual perceptual position leading to the well reasoned. This in group out group thing for me is bollocks. Its NLP that matters not the co creators and Grinder at least holds his hands up to that in whispering. I'm disappointed by Eric's communication

No sarcasm intended.

In that case then I am aghast as to what specific content in the post I am to pay attention to. I am also aghast as to how to the content even matters in the context of an ever increasingly robust NLP. Are we talking about a second hand comment on Grinders claim? If it is that claim that Grinder even did make can one comment be taken out of context to that extent? Is that what we are going to use as "knowing"? Forgive me for my mind readings but your metaphor doesn't make sense to a musical philistine such as myself.

There is no metaphor: sometimes a spoon is just a spoon.

I was presenting a situation that, like Eric's claims about a particular painter, points to the need for content as a requirement in at least some instances of modelling.

Thanks Adrian. I truly didn't if I had missed the point. I think then a more useful discussion following this centers around intentions for modeling through a Know Nuffin state. Bandler knew nuffin when he did it otherwise He would have done it on his own...

Who cares who is doing what it is what is the most useful

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm8kTIj_0M]YouTube - there is no spoon original english[/ame]

adrian r wrote:

How about focusing on the content of Eric's communication rather than its form?

Why? The form also contains useful information. Aren't you fascinated? Of all the states and communication styles available, a highly experienced NLP exponent made a particular choice. Has that choice influenced anybody, was it intended to, if influence wasn't the intention what was? Were I to have Eric's knowledge of NLP would I inevitably react the same way or does this come from somewhere else? If it comes from somewhere else does it get embedded in the NLP Eric uses and teaches?

Oh, I agree.

So why recommend the emphasis on content?

Partly because of the outbreak of off-topic unpleasantness that Eric's contribution inspired.

Also to suggest that form and content are harder to untangle than one might suppose.

adrian r wrote:

Oh, I agree.

So why recommend the emphasis on content?

Partly because of the outbreak of off-topic unpleasantness that Eric's contribution inspired.

Also to suggest that form and content are harder to untangle than one might suppose.

Fair enough

I have to say that I am dumfounded at Eric's post.

Rules of membership.
Just the other day Chris retracted membership of an individual who said that another poster was a talking a load of nonsense.

Rules of the forum.

Respectful, friendly and constructive: We appreciate flexibility and understand that some people like to express themselves in direct and/or provocative ways. However, we do not allow posts that seem to us to be overly aggressive, hectoring or otherwise unpleasant. We want this to be a pleasant environment. Please choose your words well, and remember: “the map is not the territory”.

I fail to see how Eric applied these highlighted rules to his post? Double standards?
I value Eric's contributions to Connections but I fail to see how this style of communicating is constructive. 8 thumbs down is quite an achievement for a Master trainer of NLP, especially one who is so articulate and inspiring at times.

I would ask you Chris that you leave the post up. I'm not into censorship but I do feel that it should be one rule for everyone. So either abandon the rules and lets have a free for all or have a word with Eric to keep his posts to within the forum etiquette please.

I don't like rudeness about anyone and find it unacceptable practice, especially as there are so many other choices available within what is a fantastic forum.

Regards
Peter

I'm sure people will understand if I do not censure my friend and teacher, while also reminding everyone of the site rules and community standards.

Hi Chris
I quite agree with non censorship where at all possible, however frienship aside, that post broke several rules considerably.
My only request is that congruency is maintained and Eric is asked to stick within the rule structure you put forward which seems to me to be a reasonable set of working standards.

If not this site will become like many others which I know you would not want? This forum has been one of the few to maintain some kind of platform where people could post and learn without the kind of display that Erics post demonstrated.

It would be a shame to see this site go downhill in standards, equally I respect the importance of free speech. As people who can understand the many options available to us rudeness is a very limiting tool for advanced communication.

Regards

peter

On 9 Nov 09, and at 07.22am, Derek Barrymore wrote (with spacing and punctuation added):

"Why? The form also contains useful information.(1)

"Aren't you fascinated? (2)

"Of all the states and communication styles available, a highly-experienced NLP exponent made a particular choice. (3)

"Has that choice influenced anybody? (4)

"Was it intended to? (5)

"If influence wasn't the intention, what was? (6)

"Were I to have Eric's knowledge of NLP, would I inevitably react the same way? (7)

"Or does this come from somewhere else? (8)

"If it comes from somewhere else, (9)

"does it get embedded in the NLP Eric uses and teaches? (10)"

Since you're concentrating on form, Derek, and not content - although you can't really separate the two - how can you have some form if you haven't got the content that goes with it, to have the form of? And unless you move to pure abstract symbolism - as in logic and mathematics - then you're always dealing in content - a fact which you seem to want to deny.

But, as I said, since you ARE dwelling on form, let's see what you're doing with YOUR language. (The paragraph numbers below correspond to the bracketed numbers above, like they do in many linguistics text books.)

1. "The form also contains useful information" - and you're about to hint at what that information is. Not state. Not prove with any certainty. But going by what's called pragmatic implication.

2. "Aren't you fascinated?" - pragmatically sez "You should be."

3. "A highly-experienced NLP exponent made a particular choice" - right there, you've "gone meta" to what I posted, claiming to be above it all, claiming distance. And you're inviting others to do the same.

4. "Has that choice influenced anybody?" - it could be you're asking for factual information, some kind of head count, some kind of survey ... but I don't think so. I think it's much more you want to suggest that what I said doesn't, wouldn't, and couldn't influence anybody.

5. "Was it intended to?" Ditto.

6. "If influence wasn't the intention ... " - you're halfway there, aren't you, Derek? - ".. what was?"

Bingo. You've got people thinking what my motive was. AND you've suggested that I have another intention - perhaps a not very honourable one.

You've managed to turn what I posted into what in political journalism is called a "process story" - a story about the process, and not the major issue at hand. Not the issue which might be a lot more important for all our sakes than the fixations of the insiders - in politics, those who spend too much time "inside the Westminster village" or "inside the [Washington] beltway".

And we all know that the people who make "policy", well, they just can't be trusted, can they?

Their motives are always dishonourable ones.

7. "Were I to have Eric's knowledge of NLP, would I inevitably react the same way?"

This is where it all pivots, Derek. This is what you were reaching for. It sounds like you're giving me something. Sounds like you're almost willing to walk a mile in my shoes. Sounds like you're willing to concede that what I know might just be more than what Alistair and Renee and Peter know, taken separately, or even together.

But then, that "inevitably" snatches it all away.

Nothing inevitable about it, right? 'Cos you go straight into:

8. "Or does this come from somewhere else?"

This is where you've been heading all along. Did you realize that as you said it? As the words first formed in your mind?

This is what in speech-making is called a rhetorical question, and in politics is called a "push poll". You seem to be asking, but really, you're kinda stating. You just want to put the idea in people's minds.

9. "If it comes from somewhere else, does it get" - what's the word you use? "Embedded." Ah yes. Solid and inseparable. " ... in the nlp Eric uses and teaches."

I'll save you time, Derek. You have no idea, from real experience, of how I teach. I know this because you have never been in my class.

If you had been, you wouldn't even ask the question.

Until such time as you do have the experience, you could always ask a representative sample of the thousands of people that I've taught. Real experience, even other people's, beats clever speculation any day.

Eric.

My criticisms of Dr Grinder's work, and the limitations thereof, and the errors therein, aren't just based on what I know. They're shared by several other leading thinkers in nlp.

But it does seem as if the three people mentioned above - Alistair, Renee, and Peter - don't want to hear any criticism of his thinking, or his work.

In a nutshell, it mustn't even be questioned.

Not forcefully. Not even gently.

And when it is questioned - in any meaningful way - Oh, My Gosh. As if I'd said "fuck" in church.

I do note that one of these three has, as far as I know, only ever been to a Grinder training. The second has been to several Grinder trainings, some even where he gets to act as an assistant, but outside of that, he has little experience of other nlp work.

And the third has only recently taken the Grinder shilling - but in the process seems to have found his spiritual home, the one complete answer to all his (nlp) needs. (I always had you figured as a closet kino, Peter, and it seems that in the "new code" work, you've found a place where you can come out. :-))) )

I don't know which bit of what I said was so shocking - that I said "bollocks" (twice - which, as John Mortimer pointed out in the "Never Mind the Bollocks' case, is unlikely to surprise even the most chaste of maiden aunts these days, being a robust English expression equivalent to no more than the US expression, "nuts"), or that I dared question the Holy Mother Church.

One of the things which I and some of the other critics mentioned above have pointed out is the almost ideological, self-sealing system which Dr Grinder and Ms Bostic St Clair have constructed around their work.

In the same way as the Jesuits' training was designed to make Catholicism impervious to ANY challenge or criticism, the Grinder/ Bostic St Clair account of nlp seems designed to be beyond reproach.

But more than that, it is, like the Catholic church, the one and only. The true one.

Not to me, it isn't. And not to quite a few other people who believe in choice.

Eric.