I'm keen to know if there are any/many people out there on this forum whose primary NLP interest and focus is around modelling. I am a keen modeller myself, and always like to discuss ideas, methods, and cases with those who are like-minded. My approaches borrow from Bandlers "stealing skills", Dilts works especially from his book "NLP Modelling", and Gordon's "Experiential Array".

Currently I am modelling effectiveness in the workplace and having a really good time doing it, so interesting! Look forward to thoughts, feelings, observations...

Richard @ Performandchange.com

I just happen to remember a post not long ago on this forum which threw some confusion onto the fact that NLP Modelling was of much efficiency at all.


The post involved an example with a bow and arrow experience, where some learnt the NLP Way (Modelling) and others the Standard Way. At the end of the experience... the others did best ...

The best way to model really depends on what is being modeled in my opinion.

Certainly, the best way to learn NLP is the NLP way (Modeling).

Probably just an opinion also.

Interesting. Personally, I have noticed that when the activity being modeled has a larger cognitive component, NLP modelling works really well. I know that's a generalisation, but seems to work well for me - and I guess that's what it's all about, whether it works for you. Thoughts?

As discussed in other threads on NLP in education, everyone has their own unique learning style. In addition to possible preferences for various representational systems, we have our own references when exposed to the language patterns of any teacher or individual we seek to model. In addition, we also have internal responses to the person's face, style, dress, personality, body language, and even the states they tend to go into.

For instance, watching Tony Robbins get excited seems entertaining to me. But watching certain televangelists get worked up is a little disturbing for me - some not all.

My point here is to point out that not only are we wise to looking at various styles of modelling (NLP or otherwise) - we may also benefit from taking into account our own style of learning and absorbing what is useful to us. And even more, we may consider the one being modelled as yet a third factor.

Another example here is that in a classroom setting I learn best by going into trance, but in a work setting I tend to learn kinesthetically. You can show me a thousand times, but it's doing it that allows me to learn the fastest. Now that being said, there are some people that put me at ease, and others who I don't care much to be close to. If you put me next to the first type, I am happy to be guided through kinesthetically. Put me next to the second, and I'd rather learn from across the room while imagining that I am practicing the skill.

And my point here is that any discussion of modelling as a disembodied concept or theoretical debate seems incomplete. It leaves out both the uniqueness of model and learner - as well as the learning styles involved.

That's an interesting point of view David. That also gives a good reason to learn in other ways using new strategies if not only to introduce some flexibility in learning styles. I find when I learn from someone who is similar to myself in thinking strategies I learn so much better and it would be even better than that to learn some new strategies to learn in different ways. This actually happens.

Looks like we're all aligned at some level at least - in that "Modelling is good", whether NLP or otherwise - Although one thrown-around definition of "NLP" is "Doing whatever works", so suppose that makes every modelling approach that works "NLP" Ah I'm thinking too much, that's enough for today.

One big thing I learned about modelling is getting out of my own way. It's easy to forget that one's strategies and narrow perceptions or 'style' of learning can appear to modulate/filter/interfere with the phenomena.

Also, the chunk size or scope matters. I remember a heated conversation on this forum about 'modelling' on flying a 747. As if one would fly with a pilot after having the entire skillset 'installed' in one afternoon! Whereas modelling a single skill is more at the scope of how to push a throttle lever forward in a certain way. (That is thrilling by the way!).

How many people are observed for modelling of the skill? And what signals are simply 'noise'?

I'll give you a classic example of 'noise' gathered as data: I spent a decade plus, teaching Salespeople. Many newbies will use huge numbers of tag questions to data gather as in:
You want this...don't you? You'd want this in red wouldn't you? You wouldn't want your partner and children to suffer absolute penury should you die...do you?
To which the answer is yes...but also no. (other answers are available including 'invitations' to leave.)

Rather than this inelegant form of mindreading, I'd steer them to saying "What do you want?" instead; where "No" is unlikely to be encountered, and agreement much more likely.

So I pick up Persuasion Engineering by RB and what do I find? Tag b****y questions! Noise coded as signals! Sorry RB, on that point I disagree.

CAVEAT: Now I do happen to believe that a number of closed questions with Yes/No answers are good for checking with the customer/client; specifically in summarising what they've said, not for data gathering. I think that mindreading is less than useful.

{toungue in cheek}Of course you ALL believe that...don't you?{/tongue in cheek}

Richard

Thinking through an NLP filter tends to have that effect. Doing whatever works makes sound sense to me and doing something different tends to lead to other things that work just as good, if not better. The outcome is the outcome so the more ways of achieving that outcome the more likely it will be successful. All modeling I know of is useful and good. I believe the restrictions on modeling is more about the capabilities of the modeler in contrast to the effectiveness of modeling systems. The all end up with a process to achieve an outcome. If the outcome has been got the resuslt has been had. Just a few more thoughts for the next few days.

zeitgeist wrote:

As if one would fly with a pilot after having the entire skillset 'installed' in one afternoon!

Fly with a pilot? I hope they would fly with a pilot.
I think it might be possible to fly a 747 before actually flying a real 747. Simulators are very good these days and much of the skillset can certainly be learned without actually flying the jet. Having the skillset 'installed' is something else. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.