Bufo Marinus wrote:

For example, yes, it is easy to say, or in philosophy-speak, "trivially true" that "nobody is proposing the complete erradication of content impositions", but on closer examination that is so general it could mean anything or nothing. Because it describes no clear set of standards, bounds, gradients, etc. for what rule sets one applies, or filters, if you will, under what conditions for what is and what isn't content imposition.

Or it could just mean that no one on this thread is saying "YOU CANNOT IMPOSE CONTENT EVER" as in - it just hasn't been said. It was specifically your content imposition that was rejected - yours, not every content imposition ever uttered. No standards bounds or gradients needed (surely).

Hi Bufo

thanks for your clarification of what Mind reading is for you.
It appears to focus on the 'why' from an evolutionary approach? I have no idea as I was not around at the beginning and certainly was not involved at the design stage in the grand scheme of creation if there was one?

It's a hypotheses. However there are ways of presenting the case that can if articulated well and intelligently imply far more to the reader than speculation. They can suggest a truth? Where is the basis for this truth?

If we were to take the meta model to several of your posts on this thread it makes for an exercise in NLP training. Now of course you can choose to say what ever you like and in what ever way you wish to say it,I personally have no issue with that, it's free speech after all.

What I am curious about is why any NLPer would ignore the structure of communication ( as known by NLpers) that gives rise to misleading statements? Unless of course they were not ignoring it , they were deliberately using it for some intention? This is not a mind read it's an open question?

If we are to take communication further as you suggest (the next level of competence) maybe it might be a starting point for people to have mastered what we have already before moving on to this new threshold?

By that I mean actually questioning through clarification what someone has said before jumping in with both feet first from what they THINK was said.

I take my writing on here as a responsibility to New readers of NLP as a model. I try to not second guess others. I seek clarification If I'm unsure as this medium is rife for misunderstanding to occur even with the best attempt at writing. This you chose not to do. Instead you chose to apply even more mind reading on your part. I do not apply dogma to my beliefs in life and any one who knows me would second that, I'm very open minded and have many times shifted my viewpoints in life to reflect growth in my personal understanding. I am always ready to learn new things, that's why I'm taking the trouble to write this now!!

I return to this quote
"I am genuinely disturbed to see you reaching, reflexively, for a dogmatic position without sufficiently questioning that position. Or the implications of that position. Perhaps the practice of NLP, in toto, is so fundametally incoherent in its basic assumptions that it simply ought to be eliminated and replaced with something else."

How the hell do you know if I have or have not sufficiently questioned that position?????????? The rest of your post is based on that basic flaw...............

With all the tools at your disposal, why have you chosen to mind read??

The same way your original post is full of mind reads and assumptions
(Unless you have asked Dr. Phill - and then some of your comments would not make sense).

For what purpose?? What was your intention?

There are many things you have said which I find very interesting and am interested to debate further as I think some of your points are valid when they are YOUR ideas and founded on YOUR thinking. However this shift into mind reading seems strange from someone clearly so articulate and well read.

I'm hoping that we can start this again as you clearly have some very interesting things to say, despite whether I agree with them or not.
Regards
Peter

I did my dissertation on Evolutionary Psychology. Problem with using evolution as some sort of explanation is that it falls down because we are actually a complete and total evolutionary f*ck up. It went severely belly up for evolution when it evolved the mind and the "meta" ability that came with it. We are built to learn and have sex. The primary purpose for sex is reproduction, the secondary purpose is pleasure. Evolution didn't envisage condoms coming along...

adrian r wrote:

Yeah, I kind of go along with Bufo for much of this. There's a kind of tabula rasa mindset suggested by New Code devotees in particular which cuts off a lot of productive debate at the knees. Merely observing that something is a mind-read doesn't stop it being incisive, creative, and generative. The necessary distinction is awareness of when one is doing this, and when it is not needed. And it takes time and training to develop the requisite awareness-of-awareness.

Hi Adrian in what contexts is a mind read useful? How do you know you've done it successfully? What constitutes a successful mind read? In which context is a mind read useful on a medium such as this? Whats going through your mind as you read this now? How are you perceiving me to be? How specifically does someone trained in New code become a devotee - is that a mind read? How can you ever be sure your mind read is useful when you form your own conclusions that cannot be based on what is in front of you because its a mind read? These are genuine questions by the way and if I state my intention it will prevent you mind reading.

My intention is to have as much knowledge and true awareness as I can possibly cram in within as little time as possible. The wider the goal posts the more I can score.

Hmmmm.... I don't think my point is getting across... you can retreat into the position of "the fog of relativism".... i.e. since nothing can be absolutely known (heck, we weren't around when jellyfish first emerged, so we can truthfully say nothing about the emergence of jellyfish) that means that nothing can be usefully inferred.... and that is one not very useful complex equivalence... self limiting logic.

The problem with the meta-model is that it is a simplistic load of crap in many more advanced situations where it founders on its own preciousness.... I've nothing against it for tightening up some basic positional understandings, but when your dealing with a large scale analysis of some dense, cross referenced, or philosophically subtle, or scientifically intense thinking where you're juggling multiple frames of reference, logical levels, and inferential processes... you're going to need stronger stuff.

The reason I would ignore the structure of communication is that I am deliberately employing OTHER structures of communication that I choose to use in combination with NLP derived structures, NLP is only one game among many, one can opener in a drawer full of effective implements... which doesn't negate the pleasures or usefulness of NLP, but one would be obtuse to solely depend one one framework any more than one would be obtuse to depend on one tool...

I actually don't see why mind reading is such a bad thing, even crudely done mind reading.... especially if I can generate the level of response that allows me to see deeper into your thought processes, I mean, maybe you have some dogmatisms running your thinking that have never been framed that way.... and this collision with philosophy is doing exactly what the root intention of philosophy is, to act as a contrast medium like the gadolinium dye they inject when they perform an MRI scan when suddenly they can see deeper into living tissue with greater analytic detail...

it isn't really a matter of how I can know my assessments in the sense of any ultimate knowability.... because we can't know, even what we take for our most grounded thinking are in truth nothing more than educated guesses... which are grounded in frameworks, NLP is only one framework, as Psychoanalysis is a robust and complicated framework that is appalling to NLP orthodoxy but far, far subtler and more sophisticated, the work of thousands of minds, exteremely smart people, some badly misguided, Scientology is a framework, weird as hell, seems to have glommed onto NLP wn nobody was looking... but for all I know the utterly bizarre workings of L Ron Hubbard's mind colliding with our precious cargo may give rise to a novel thing nobody could have anticipated....

But in all of this, I have a suspicion that the question, "why have you chosen to mind read ?" is a screen for a deeper, more valuable, self revealing question that you cannot, yet, bring yourself to ask.

Alistair_Donnell wrote:

I did my dissertation on Evolutionary Psychology. Problem with using evolution as some sort of explanation is that it falls down because we are actually a complete and total evolutionary f*ck up. It went severely belly up for evolution when it evolved the mind and the "meta" ability that came with it. We are built to learn and have sex. The primary purpose for sex is reproduction, the secondary purpose is pleasure. Evolution didn't envisage condoms coming along...

Dude, that sounds righteous but it unpacks about as clear as mud. If we're an evolutionary dead end, why didn't we go the way of the neanderthals ?

renee wrote:

Or it could just mean that no one on this thread is saying "YOU CANNOT IMPOSE CONTENT EVER" as in - it just hasn't been said. It was specifically your content imposition that was rejected - yours, not every content imposition ever uttered. No standards bounds or gradients needed (surely).

that's just nonsense. no standards needed ? you take your kids to vetinarians because their "content" shouldn't be judged differently from say, neurosurgeons ? Yeah, right... hey, mister horesdoctor sir, could you pretty please take this tumor out of my child's head ? No need to sweat the grubby content... we'll take that 'ol tumor home and plant it behind the house. The almanack we found in the attick tells us they grow into turnips... so'z must be true, rite ther in black n white..

No... why do I not envision this scenario unfolding ?

Hi Bufo if I can frame my interacting with you in general: I don't mind read you to take offence by disagreement and I also mind read you to "not" intentially cause offence in your posts. A gloves on debater and I personally appreciate that...

Bufo Marinus wrote:

Dude, that sounds righteous but it unpacks about as clear as mud. If we're an evolutionary dead end, why didn't we go the way of the neanderthals ?

That is an excellent example of a mind read. I said evolutionary f*ck up, not dead end. The primary purpose of any living organism is to reproduce because "genes like diamonds are forever" (Dawkins,The Selfish Gene). That is the genetic evolutionary goal that our evolved meta ability has quashed. I remember seeing on the news that there has been something like a 70% increase in Downs Syndrome children since the seventies. Why? Because women want careers and having children late - a cultural side effect from evolution. Culture being a side effect of how mammals learn. Evolution simply does not "want" to introduce defective genes into the population it "aims" to get rid of them. Can I hasten to add also that the theory of evolution carries no value judgement (content imposition) I AM NOT SAYING people shouldn't have Down Syndrome children or that women shouldn't have careers meaning child birth comes far later but from an evolutionary point of view it goes against the grain significantly. As do condoms. As does quality NLP. As does everything else we were not intended for like jumping out of a plane...



How many Kuhnian constructionist philosophers of science does it take to change a light bulb?
You're still thinking in terms of 'incremental change'--what we really need is paradigm shift...we don't need a bulb with more attributes just a better state

Bufo Marinus wrote:

that's just nonsense. no standards needed ? you take your kids to vetinarians because their "content" shouldn't be judged differently from say, neurosurgeons ? Yeah, right... hey, mister horesdoctor sir, could you pretty please take this tumor out of my child's head ? No need to sweat the grubby content... we'll take that 'ol tumor home and plant it behind the house. The almanack we found in the attick tells us they grow into turnips... so'z must be true, rite ther in black n white..

No... why do I not envision this scenario unfolding ?

Is that content or knowing that different organisms' bodies have different processes? I wouldn't want the gas man to sort my plumbing. I wouldn't want a psychoanalyst to "tell me" my problems either

Two behaviorists have sex. One turns to the other and says, "That was good for you: how was it for me?"

I have a policy of not responding to questions involving the word 'specifically' so anyone having posed such will (my mind read, I know, I know...) be disappointed.

My thing with this stuff (and yes, I am enjoying the sheer vagueness of my communication here, thanks) is that as someone who spends quite a bit of time screenwriting, I see different kinds of truth out there.

For sure there is the sensory-specific endlessly delineated kind of exposition that forensic scientists traffic in. And there are other truths. Those of art in its various forms. I recently saw Julie and Julia, and that contains truth. So does In Search of Eric. But Couples Retreat doesn't.

How can I make such a statement? I know my epistemology is shoddy, but I nevertheless know truth when I see it in art, and strive to create such in my own writing.

I note in passing that John Grinder is logically astute. But a lousy poet.

Hi Adrian
Specifically like any other word is best used in context and a context where it can be used. To ask about something specific in another logical type would be pointless. Hence asking someone to be specific about listening to music is not likely to produce specificity in the context the questioner asked clarification in. Just more

With that said does that mean you NEVER reply to specifically regardless of context?

Just so I know for future correspondence

Regards
Peter

Bufo Marinus wrote:

that's just nonsense.

do you really think so ? ok, well my own guess is that you just like spouting pseudo academic tripe more than you like actually discussing things. Have fun

renee wrote:

do you really think so ? ok, well my own guess is that you just like spouting pseudo academic tripe more than you like actually discussing things. Have fun

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Alistair_Donnell wrote:

Hi Bufo if I can frame my interacting with you in general: .....
That is an excellent example of a mind read. I said evolutionary f*ck up, not dead end.

If memory serves, culturally induced forms of selection pressure are known as Baldwinian Evolution.... I don't have the foggiest idea who Baldwin was... he must have counted for something in the early stages of evolutionary theory.

As for Evolutionary f*ck up, yes, of course, now I remember, J.B.S. Haldane and the Unified Theory Of Evolutionary Expletives... caused quite a stir in its' day....

Hi All,

Great thread so far I think, with differing inputs from many well informed people with IMHO valid points of view that are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and might even inform the other.

Personally I tend towards the Bufo/Adrian side of this debate at the same time as fully acknowledging the benefits of sticking to process as far as reasonably possible in aspects of changework, especially when content exchange leaves us stuck, in difficulties, ineffective and out of rapport or otherwise with a problem.

I do not need a detailed concsious process map to go to the supermarket for a week's shopping, although I accept that I have one, I need a shopping list. Only if I came home with a week's worth of rubbish would an investigation of my process be indicated. My point is that day to day in many ways, we get by on content just fine.

To me there is a relationship between "mind reading" and rapport. The two can be complimentary or reciprocal processes. I mean I think it is possible that the two can enhance eachother when done well, (with "accuracy" or shared meaning), but when a "mind read" is way out, it can undermine rapport rather badly.

I agree I think that we are set up as creatures to "mind read", for whatever evolutionary/survival/socio-conditioning reasons. That just seems so. Whether or not it is "good" or "bad", useful or otherwise I guess depends a lot on the context and the relationship. I presuppose for example that "mind reading" in the world of sales and business can prove to be profitable or advantageous. I have found the (apparent) ability to second guess the intentions of others very useful in terms of staying safe in potentially risky situations. My partner and I "mind read" all the time - usually with a fair degree of accuracy. It saves much time and explanation. For example, when we discuss what we might like for dinner, there is often a fair trade of content imposing, but we can usually agree without investigation of the underlying process of communication.

The way I understand it, there are various levels to communication, a spectrum of superficial content or surface structure riddled with meta model violations that can lead us to the deeper linguistic structure that itself is a reflection of the core sensory based experiences. We know that the sensory based stuff can be messed up and tidied up with process intervention, leading to a change of state, linguistic output etc.

I do not think this debate will be resolved any time soon if folk adhere to one or other polarity of this spectrum. I think trying to function in the world at either polarity is going to throw up problems. Surely the issue is about awareness of where we are and having behavoural choices to do something different (if what we are doing isn't working).

We use our own minds to evaluate and organise our own experience. Even when we "mind read" ourselves we can build in inherent flaws (distortions, deletions etc). It seems hardly surprising to me that those same faculties seek to process another person's world when our attention is grabbed by them and enhanced by rapport, and of course there is the scope for mistakes to be made, but also the opportunity to improve our understanding of the other.

When I am with a Client and go for an intuited "mind read", if I share meaning, the Client perceives a rapport, empathy, sense of trust whatever in me as a person they might want to talk to. Even if my intuition is way off at the time and I put across a mismatched "mind read", the Client is likely to quickly correct me, leading to a better position hopefully of contact - so it's all good.

As regards imposing content I would agree that in situations such as therapy or changework while the deep level structure of a problem is being assessed then imposing content at an early stage can be less than useful, or even destructive.

However is not even a process level intervention, carefully assessed and selected by me still a kind of imposition onto the Client as it is chosen from my map of the world, even if that map has been well informed by eliciting theirs first ? Even something as straighforward and obvious as a little submodality tweak could in this way be seen as imposing some kind of content, surely ?

One aspect I think this thread does highlight quite well is the relative weakness in NLP when it comes to relationship interactions and the language to understand those, though I do not think mixing it up with TA is the way to go, as expressed on a different thread. Some of the language used by Bufo earlier in the thread seems to have more of a heritage in Gestalt, and in my mind is more useful and appropriate, even if it is analytic, nominalised and open to a range of interpretations. Such discussions, like this one could be useful and engaging if not NLP derived. Are multiple descriptions not a useful way to gather information anymore ?

Finally (you might be glad to hear) I think that Bufo is right to comment that for a discipline that makes an issue (usefully in my view) of modal operators, a covert set of should and should nots seems to have slipped in, perhaps. An explicit resolution of this apparent paradox could be really useful, but that would be another post, or even thread. Apologies for the length of this one - its gone longer than I intended.

Regards,

MH

PS I would not be surprised at all if the original clip that started off this debate was set up from start to finish with the full participation of all parties, including the odious producer of the Bumfight series. He gets a load of free advertising while Dr Phil appears (fleetingly) to have the superior ethical stance on his own dubious TV programme. At least I assume it's dubious (my "mind read") as I have never seen his show.

Alistair_Donnell wrote:

Is that content or knowing that different organisms' bodies have different processes? I wouldn't want the gas man to sort my plumbing. I wouldn't want a psychoanalyst to "tell me" my problems either.

Therin lies the rub. What precisely IS content ?

"As imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the
poet’s pen
Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name."

Hi all
I would like to make a few points that seem to have been overlooked in the intellectual debate which has followed in response to my original post to Bufo.

Mind reading from my perspective.

1) When someone says something and you apply your presumed understanding (in the form of interpretation or evaluation) to that communication consciously back in the form of a reply there are three options open.

a) To acknowledge that you are speaking from your map. Make clear that there may be some misunderstanding and seek to clarify what you thought you understood accordingly. Use language that supports that understanding.

b) Reply back and be unaware of the fact that you have imposed your misunderstanding on the other person. Seek to clarify if you are made aware of the mistaken mind read.

c) As option 'b' plus replay back as if you are correct in your mind read and not show any sign of acknowledgement that you might in fact be way of target.

Option 'A' allows for an exchange which respects the other persons map and seeks to bridge an accurate attempt at the impossible by recognising the inherent faults in communication by using linguistic tools to correct those misunderstandings.

Option 'B'. From a position of ignorance. Ignorance that they do not realise there are conflicting maps and that there are linguistic tools to correct those differences.

Option 'C'. From a position of ignorance and there is unlikely to be a conversation with exchange as it is one person only following their train of thought with a view that they are correct in their assumptions.

I guess there is also a fourth position that the person knows they have mind read and they don't give a F***.

I consider the last option the most disturbing especially when people use words like 'IS'.
If they seek to speak with authority by specific use of grammar eliminating choice on behalf of the reader. The key is being aware that one is mind reading.

Malcomb's last post demonstrates a great example of the use of awareness in communication. He seeks to state his position in regard to his thoughts and his respectful (my interpretation of his efforts to convey clarity) use of grammar that he acknowledges his views may not be accurate or universal. He leaves this to the reader to accept or question.
Example:
"However is not even a process level intervention, carefully assessed and selected by me still a kind of imposition onto the Client as it is chosen from my map of the world, even if that map has been well informed by eliciting theirs first ? Even something as straightforward and obvious as a little sub-modality tweak could in this way be seen as imposing some kind of content, surely?"

The ' could and surely' are key to allowing us to consider Malcombs map. He invites us to join him in his idea. As opposed to: "Even something as straightforward and obvious as a little sub-modality tweak IS imposing some kind of content."

Malcomb was not replying from a direct response, he was suggesting an opinion. When the above example comes from a mind read I seek clarification as I wish to understand with what the intention of the other person is. That way I can attempt to communicate more effectively if possible. If it turns out that the person does not care about other peoples opinions and appear to be ignorant of the resultant mind reads i generally back off as often there is little two way conversation happening. It has likely become a monologue.

In regard to Adrian not wishing to communicate with people who use the word specifically, how very convenient when the other person is requiring facts to back up a supposed mind read as in my question to him!!!!!!!!

As I said earlier, before we move forward with new models as suggested by Bufo (which BTW I think is valid and well worthy of discussion) an attempt to recognise our own patterns and there effect and limitations on our communication with others might be in order? Self improvement and growth are important to me in my responsibility to be congruent with what I teach. Work in progress and an open mind is my motto. If we are to be effective in our communication then getting one's own house in order first seems the only place to start? That means trying to communicate as best one can with the tools that one has. If you have many sets of tools so much the better.

I found this clip by RAW had a huge influence on me when I was first introduced to it a few years ago. It changed my own style of communicating over night. Someone sent it to me as feedback and I have been grateful ever since. Like anything else it is a suggestion not a rule, but it does make for a less radical approach and a respect for other people's maps.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCIqFAdI6eI]YouTube - Robert Anton Wilson - Language, Reason & Reality[/ame]



Regards
Peter

Peter --

as regards my issues with the word 'specific' and its variations, bear in mind that there is a degree of mischief at play.

If nothing else, it's a way of encouraging some NLPers to be more flexible. And I can and do proceed down the sensory evidence and logical rigour track when that is useful for me.

But, as advanced before, I do not believe that such an approach fully embraces the curiosity about and engagement with life that I witness in first class NLP trainers including Eric Robbie and Michael Breen. Those two, when I first came across them in a training on creativity years ago were, during breaks, having an ongoing conversation about the aesthetics of truth -- yes, one nominalisation in the context of another -- that nevertheless seemed to be a sane and indeed fascinating chat.

So, Peter, given that there are any number of creative types out there capable of producing work that can resonate and produce a range of effects from empathy to spiritual uplift...how is that possible? Or is this conceit to be dismissed with the rebuff that all I witness is my own mind reads or those of others..? I hope not: you're brighter than that.

Hi Adrian
"as regards my issues with the word 'specific' and its variations, bear in mind that there is a degree of mischief at play. "

Thank you for telling me because I can't mind read that!
"Or is this conceit to be dismissed with the rebuff that all I witness is my own mind reads or those of others..? I hope not: you're brighter than that."

Not at all. I think my last post says as much. If it does not please ask me where to be more specific

Regards
Peter

Well, IMHO, we're making genuine progress on multiple levels I think.... these can only come about from committed collisions of beliefs, cultural differences which are too often taken for granted, frames, etc.... My belief is that real progress comes from the energy invested, these things have to matter, there has to be some *besetzung* something at stake, the possibility that we might break some stuff but we might bring some stuff into the world as well... it's the struggling to hammer some steel into a workable shape... outrage, incomprehension, frustration, these are standard part of the creative process...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ9ueICM0S0]YouTube - NLP Zeus self immolates pt. 1[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98-NOg-vTRQ]YouTube - NLP Zeus self immolates pt. 2[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxPUjVsznNI]YouTube - NLP Zeus self immolates pt.3[/ame]