First, have a look at the thread 'What is a belief system?'. It will provide a useful frame for what I'd like to do here.

My hopefully good-humoured scepticism about know-nothing states has been brought up more than once in these parts. The thing being, I'm not sure it's possible to 'suspend' belief, 'rise above' one's preconceptions, or any of that stuff.

I can't help noticing beliefs at work in everything a person does, and doesn't do. There's a web, a rainforest, a coral reef of clustered prejudices, preconceptions, and dogmas involved in every choice a person makes. Rather than pretend that's not the case, and that we can somehow 'learn something' by 'know nothing', why not ride with what's already working and make the most of the beliefs you hear someone express when you're modelling them?

This pragmatic choice is influenced, guess what, by my beliefs. And in particular the beliefs acquired when I attended Michael Breen's groundbreaking course in which a group of us modelled remote viewer Joe McMoneagle and bio-energy healer Seka Nikolic. Pretty much the first thing we did was listen to them get interviewed by Michael, pluck out the beliefs relevant to their skills and in their orbit, and visualise and step into a version of ourselves who operated from those beliefs.

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?

Would it be possible (or even likely) to have a definition of terms here? I (believe I) understand Todd Epstein's "Nerk Nerk" state and also the Castenada-Grinder-DeLozier "Stop the world" state, is "Know-nothing" something else?

I believe that 'know nothing' and 'nerk nerk' can be considered synonymous. Someone with greater knowledge of Epstein's work and New Code is welcome to correct me in this regard.

My Nerk Nerk state I know well and drop into it almost every time I ask someone "How do you do that?". I never considered whether or not my own beliefs are still in the way so to speak, I'm too busy engaged with the person I'm trying to understand.

Hi Derek
"I'm too busy engaged with the person I'm trying to understand."
This line fortunately clarifies to some extent what you are experiencing.
No this would not be a know nothing state. If you are trying to understand with comprehension you would be aware of learning.
In a know nothing state there is no conscious awareness of comprehension. You are in the flow of being and as such there is a focused absorption on the context you are watching to the extent that YOU are not there consciously.

Adrian
I think that both examples you mention are valid for modelling, they are just different systems of modelling trying to get to the same outcome.
John switches on analytic competencies at the last stages of the modelling
(only when he can consistently demonstrate the same results as the person modelled) for coding purposes.

regards
Peter

peter108 wrote:

Hi Derek
"I'm too busy engaged with the person I'm trying to understand."
This line fortunately clarifies to some extent what you are experiencing.
No this would not be a know nothing state. If you are trying to understand with comprehension you would be aware of learning.
In a know nothing state there is no conscious awareness of comprehension. You are in the flow of being and as such there is a focused absorption on the context you are watching to the extent that YOU are not there consciously.

Adrian
I think that both examples you mention are valid for modelling, they are just different systems of modelling trying to get to the same outcome.
John switches on analytic competencies at the last stages of the modelling
(only when he can consistently demonstrate the same results as the person modelled) for coding purposes.

regards
Peter

Peter, thank you for your comments. I was lazy in my use of language (as I often am). What I should have said is that I am too preoccupied with observing, listening, feeling to ponder which filters I may or may not have in place. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that is still not "Know nothing" but it is a better description than I originally gave.

Hi Derek
yes that sounds much closer to what I am alluding to.
Only you will know as we can't describe state accurately, it's different to everyone who experiences it.

Regards

Peter

In which case maybe it's awareness of belief that is suspended rather than belief itself? Would that Gregory Bateson were still alive and he could explain to me the difference between knowing and knowing that I know.

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.

Belief Systems, No-nothing States, and Modeling

I have never thought that modeling meant a very rapid skill development, is that what Grinder says? I find it quite difficult to access information about his work. Richard Bandler pointed out that when you are modeling you have to develop the resources and skills to be able to do it whatever it is. That made a hell of a lot of sense to me. For example the Parelli Programme is a modeled horse whispering system. It is an excellent system and interestingly although it is meant to take a normal person 3 months to learn many students are still working hard to aquire these skills after ten years. However it has enabled them to aquire skills that they were not developing and would not have developed in any other way. The system never claims that they will become Tom Dorrance or any of the experts that were modeled to create the system but it does promise you will have a better understanding and skill set after training.


As for 'know nothing' states I have found this concept really useful and employ it often. For me it is a state I can access and I have used it for many years. In this state my beliefs are suspended and I can experiment freely. I let go of me and an thoughts of what people might think of me. I know it is not a permanent state and that helps me go there. I can go there for a very long time. It allows me to do things that I would not ordinarily do. It is easier for me if I care little about the opinion of those I am with. It has got me into quite a lot of trouble but I have learned so much from using this state that the good far outweighs the bad. It is hardest to access when I am with people that I really respect and then I have to just go there, remember how effective it has been in the past and to hang with getting stuff wrong. I also use this state to access information I have learnt when I am stuck or feeing pressured. Importantly it is this state that enabled me to look in a fresh way at my discipline.

Hi Carol
Your quote:
"I have never thought that modelling meant a very rapid skill development, is that what Grinder says?"

Modelling takes as long as it takes and is dependant on the skills you have in relation to what it is you are modelling and of course your outcome frame.
As an example. I am involved in a modelling project with John and a selection of the worlds top concert pianists. I do not have the skills as a pianist at a high enough level to be able to do this project justice in the outcomes we hope to discover over a three year period.

Consequently we have a concert pianist who is assisting in the project who is already at a high level but not at the same level of technical ability of those artists she is modelling. I on the other hand am able to model certain aspects of their playing for another vital aspect of the project. My not knowing is actually a help not a hindrance. Her challenge is to forget.

Let me clear up a few things from Eric's post.
As a modeller the pianist does not need to know how to hold her hand above the key ( Holding the brush) in order to replicate the sound.She just has to do it without thinking. I can replicate the exact tone of Alfred Brendel playing chromatic scales. It took me three years to model it. Few people in the world can do it. I did not have the first idea of what the hell I was doing. Alfred Brendel even commented that my scales were faster than his at the end of it. I took one piece of the elephant to the dinner plate!

She does not need to know about the history of music to model a phrase and it's corresponding importance in the time period of the music. Pianists do not think about history of music when playing, the same way artists do not think about art history when painting. Music is at FA not F2.

She does not need to know about the models influences, she just has to model. It's a simple as that!!!!!!!!!!

It's not about cloning, it's about discovery and the embellishment of the human condition of excellence. It's about being curious as to what the hell we might find out if we can just get out of our own way long enough to find the missing pieces of the jigsaw. The pieces called 'genius' that to date have eluded mankind. I have no idea if we will uncover the secrets, but I'm open to the chance that we can?

As john recalls, with his linguistic skills and knowledge he could have worked out the syntax of Milton's patterns over a very short period of time if he had tried. Consequently he would have come up with the very same results that everyone else had done before. It is precisely because he and Richard did not do that that we have this other perspective. They discovered what was really going on as opposed to what appeared to be going on. "The difference which makes the difference."

Regards
Peter

Alfred Brendel : TV & Video

peter108 wrote:

Pianists do not think about history of music when playing, the same way artists do not think about art history when painting. Music is at FA not F2.

She does not need to know about the models influences, she just has to model. It's a simple as that!!!!!!!!!!

The criteria you mention may apply to classical players, but I don't believe they apply to jazz pianists. The heritage of Thelonious Monk, Bill Evans, McCoy Tyner, Keith Jarrett...is implicit in the style adopted by new players. Those lessons may not be consciously accessed in the moment, but affect the choices made by improvising players nonetheless.

So, is it possible to model those jazz players without reference to the past? Perhaps, if modelling algorithms can be devised which contain the core of their playing style at present. But the distinction is a semantic one -- that algorithm would itself contain elements of the playing of other jazz pianists, even if it doesn't name them.

As for artists not thinking about art history as they paint -- true enough probably. But coming up with the concepts and style that they approach the painting cannot but resonate with the choices of previous painters, especially since the dawn of modernism. And to omit the concept-devising phase from the modelling process seems reductionist.

Hi Adrian
I'm actually a jazz pianist myself (of sorts) not classical. Improvisation I can do, it's the classical side I can't seem to muster
I am intending to work with a selection of jazz pianists and we have one person who has successfully modelled Bill Evans who is in on this project.
A Doctor in France and has studied with John. He is a working jazz musician.

Again you are correct in that 'in the moment' there is no conscious reference to the past but like anything we see hear or feel we have all taken our present map from history as influence.

I think in the modelling of the jazz pianists another distinct flavour is in the mix which will show up quite different outcomes. Keith Jarrett, Chick Corea are of course also classical pianists as well. I'm aiming to model them as I work with both of them professionally already.
I think that it has to be said that within the modelling project the outcome frame is important. Not the outcome itself but the frame. What specifically are we trying to accomplish? The danger is that by being specific we will miss the gift?

Great points and I think you are raising important considerations within your suggestions to the outcome frame.
"And to omit the concept-devising phase from the modelling process seems reductionist."

I don't think one should omit anything that can give a clue to what might be going on, however I think the sequence is vital. If you do the analytical modelling first it might be asking to much to try and block out all the filtered knowledge, it's hard enough anyway without a new set of fresh map co-ordinates getting in the way

Regards
Peter

Saw Chick Corea last week in fact -- damn, he was good :-)

I guess in my mind -- one that hasn't been doing the range of modelling you're engaged in -- that outcome frame is an implicit part of what happens in the moment with an improvising player. And if that makes the whole modelling job all the harder, the question that then arises is 'is there a more effective methodology?'. Perhaps something fast and dirty will capture the core of what's going on?

I recall Richard Bandler on a DHE course being introduced to a light entertainer friend of Paul McKenna's (can't recall who) and capturing the essence of his approach to entertaining within minutes. The entertainer was fascinated by impro but convinced he couldn't do it, relying on a series of mnemonics to perform his act. The act itself included impersonations, including one of Robin Williams -- Bandler noted that while impersonating Williams, the performer could indeed improvise, but didn't generalise from this context. (This comment after the entertainer had left the stage, along with a credible method for implementing such a generalisation.)

Bandler also caught the key to the guy's impersonations, which started with hands -- as Bandler demonstrated in the character of Sylvester the Cat, he was stuck if the person didn't do something distinctive with their hands (Sylvester characteristically has them unseen behind his back). And he noted that the performer saw himself from the audience's perspective, as indicated by hand cues. All of this was done while engaging with the audience to confirm that we picked up at least some of what Bandler got.

The point of all this isn't to say 'Bandler's better than you', but to raise the question of just how much can be captured quickly and what must necessarily be the case to be able to do so. What amazed me, in retrospect, is how Bandler was noticing things that were all part of what we were being asked to do. The difference was the speed at which he did so, and the way in which he put together different aspects of his conclusions to form a whole working model.

It has to be said, in my experience -- which doesn't include formal modelling projects such as you're part of Peter -- that capturing part of the whole more accurately describes what I do than the kind of intense detail work you're doing with the pianists. Not in any sense a criticism -- I would love to be doing what you're doing -- but perhaps a comment to the effect that there are indeed different ways to model, rather than a canon which cannot be departed from.

Hi Adrian
yes he is hot. I always enjoyed the Electric band more but since hearing more of his acoustic work that shift in preference is about the same for me now.

I think that what you say fits for me and I personally would never claim that there is only one way and I have never heard John say this either .I have heard him say their are differences in the way he and Richard achieved what they did and what others have come up with since then. But never have I heard him say it is the only way. There are only ways which by default produce different results.

Richard and John together used a particular system. The original for NLP, not the first ever to model someone, we have been successfully doing that since the human race started.

Modelling like anything is open to evolution I guess. However those experiments that they did put them ahead of the pack at the time because they learnt from it. Others who did not understand what they did and came up with other modells of modelling may have fallen into some of the traps Richard and John were aware of from their direct experience.

Bottom line for any application,does the it work and can it produced the outcome desired? A combination of modells seems a great idea to me.
John refers to what they did historically in NLP as the original way, real NLP modelling.

How people interpret that is up to them. There are enough videos of John being very clear on this. He has his views and he is very precise for people to understand what he means.

Good thread you started.

regards

Peter

It has to be said, in my experience -- which doesn't include formal modelling projects such as you're part of Peter -- that capturing part of the whole more accurately describes what I do than the kind of intense detail work you're doing with the pianists. Not in any sense a criticism -- I would love to be doing what you're doing -- but perhaps a comment to the effect that there are indeed different ways to model, rather than a canon which cannot be departed from.

And anything else would show a complete lack of flexibility.

It seems interesting to me that a model would often have to
develop as over time, parts of it will always be indicated to be anachronistic and no longer needed.

I think this is very different to saying that you musn't find new, original and inventive ways of getting the same or similar results.
A lot of it maybe rides on the end outcome and what you get that's useful from it.

Thanks Peter.

Modelling takes as long as it takes and is dependant on the skills you have in relation to what it is you are modelling and of course your outcome frame.

Yes this fits more with my understanding of modelling and I would imagine it is also dependent on one's fitness and age in a sporting case for example.

It was very interesting to read about your music project. I am not yet a musician but I am an artist and I trained as a painter in Scotland and at The Slade. My experience of NLP modelling has been different to yours to date. I was fascinated to find out 'how I create' when we worked on my creativity strategy on the Master Practitioner training. The results held many surprises for me and I have found the information incredibly useful.

I found that I was using hundreds of thousands of images gleaned from studying painting and the world around us. Some images were of the whole paintings others were of details, some were reflections of the pantings, the paintings seen through tissue paper or glass, damaged paintings, pigment recipes, history and theory documents showing how to hold brushes, how to pounce and how to tonk. So anyone modelling me in order to do what I do would need that image store. For example if they wanted to 'experience' what I 'see' and feel when I look at Jenny Saville's work. When I look at her work I now know that I start flipping through my compendium of images and make comparisons to Bacon, Freud, Velazquez, paint brands, models skin, my own skin, type of brush, technique and so on. Before I did the exercise I did not realise what was really going on was so complex and rich.

Hi Carol
That was very insightful thanks.
I think I have found where the discrepancy might be in this discussion.
"So anyone modelling me in order to do what I do would need that image store."

To do what I do, - Which is what specifically? This is where we would need an outcome frame which might change the modelling context considerably. It all depends on what it is that someone is trying to achieve in modelling you. Bearing in mind there will be many aspects to you artistry? Is the person trying to capture all of it, the genius of your art, the techniques the state you go in or the way you relate to your medium? No doubt there are many more??
So they may not need that image store unless of course you have already been modelled and happen to know that for sure?? What I'm getting at is be open to the fact that you might have been given a very profound and useful set of modelling tools, but that does not constitute the full picture of possibility, or does it? If you seriously close that door of possibility then yes the deal has been made. Remember you are considering what someone would need to know but that's from what you know already, what about what you do not know?

Regards

Peter

I have moved some posts from this thread to a new thread in the Fight Club section.

(See: What is Fight Club?)

Hi Peter

Can you give us more detail about the modelling project? It sounds really interesting. Can you explain the exact steps of your process?

Let me clear up a few things from our discussion.

You wrote
'I think I have found where the discrepancy might be in this discussion. "So anyone modelling me in order to do what I do would need that image store."

I was drawing attention to the lack of similarity (to use your term discrepancy) or what I perceived simply as difference between my experience (described in my second post) and the point that you made that 'artists do not think about art history when painting.' which related to your experience of modelling. And I was sharing my experience and its relevance to me.

You continued
'To do what I do, - Which is what specifically? This is where we would need an outcome frame which might change the modelling context considerably. It all depends on what it is that someone is trying to achieve in modelling you. Bearing in mind there will be many aspects to you artistry? Is the person trying to capture all of it, the genius of your art, the techniques the state you go in or the way you relate to your medium? No doubt there are many more??'
I gave an example in my post, here it is again;
For example if they wanted to 'experience' what I 'see' and feel when I look at Jenny Saville's work.

You continued
'So they may not need that image store.....'
Again in my post I fleshed out how exactly they would need ''that image store';
When I look at her work I now know that I start flipping through my compendium of images and make comparisons to Bacon, Freud, Velazquez, paint brands, models skin, my own skin, type of brush, technique and so on.

You continued your sentence with
'unless of course you have already been modelled and happen to know that for sure??'
Yes I have been modelled and again in my post I explained that;
'I was fascinated to find out 'how I create' when we worked on my creativity strategy on the Master Practitioner training.'

You said
What I'm getting at is be open to the fact that you might have been given a very profound and useful set of modelling tools, but that does not constitute the full picture of possibility, or does it?
I have been modelling all sorts of things since I first learnt about NLP from books in the 1980s. For example I built a fabulous garden yet had never gardened before. Training in NLP continues to give me an entirely new set of experiences and tools and has made me more even open and curious than ever before.

You wrote
'If you seriously close that door of possibility then yes the deal has been made.'
This made me smile as I thought about whether this was true or not and I have no idea what deal you refer to. You see Peter I am usually in some sort of trouble for kicking closed doors open which would be funny if it was not also serious. You know I am sure what can happen to people who create change around them and in their wake!

You wrote
'Remember you are considering what someone would need to know but that's from what you know already, what about what you do not know?'
I described in my post what I found out about what I did not know (consciously) about my own creative process (from this particular exercise) and how this discovering 'what was really going on as opposed to what appeared to be going on.' has been important to me;
The results held many surprises for me and I have found the information incredibly useful.

I found that I was using hundreds of thousands of images gleaned from studying painting and the world around us. Some images were of the whole paintings others were of details, some were reflections of the pantings, the paintings seen through tissue paper or glass, damaged paintings, pigment recipes, history and theory documents showing how to hold brushes, how to pounce and how to tonk.

Hope that all helps and aids clarity.