I found out that the represential system that I use alot is audio digital. So that means that I am in my head alot. The questeions I am thinking is:

Is that good thing?
What use have they been in this world?
Are they good in relationships?

I know that you have to find the right balnce when useing these systems.
Im just trying to find more about this system I have not found a great deal on the net . Has anyone got any opinions about this and found any good links relating to this subject?

An NLP trainer gave me an example of someone who is highly Ad... The vulcon Spock off Star Trek

Mark

.

Quite right, well put.

Also, as I understand it, the concept of advantages stemming from using preferred representational systems has no support from research. There is no research even to suggest that speaking to a person in their preferred modality as opposed to echoing their own verbal patterns back at them has any advantage in establishing a rapport.

I know a lot of practitioners continue to use the principle, but you are completely right, we are multi-sensory animals and stimulus needs to be multi-sensory. The brain will find a way to sort it all out.

D

Thanks for the replies. True There are no advantages or disadvantages of having a high AD. At least I am more aware of my senses and how I use them.

Mark

Hi Mark,

I did a series of tests to help identify the degree of preferences when I did my Master Practitioner. I scored so badly on Ad that I began to think that maybe I have a learning difficulty in that department. Interestingly, I have had a lot of difficulty persuading my boss (high Ad preference) that the testing system that had been used by my trainers was worth more than a passing glance for all sorts of reasons. Sad really. He's missed an opportunity to learn about learning, which as you might imagine, is important for a Headteacher to know.

The manual that I was given with the results has been invaluable. "Thinking Styles" has been developed by The Cognitive Fitness Consultancy Ltd and Consulting Tools Ltd. I can only tell you that I have found this a fantastic tool for understanding myself and others. In the end we are all different in as much as we process information differently. We are all no better and no worse than others, just different.

Regards

Laura

No advantages or disadvantages? I don't agree with that assessment. I think there are both advantages and disadvantages.

Briefly -- the advantages CAN include being more highly rational and analytical. Some highly Ad people are better able to think things through from start to completion (ad nauseum, lol).

In my experience, people who are highly Auditory Digital do tend to be "up in their heads" a lot, often focusing inward, which makes them (on the average) less engaged with others in conversation than most other people can be. If Focus is a high value, then that's an advantage. If relating to others is a high value, then that's a disadvantage.

All generalizations break down, so just as any of you can probably come up with a counter example of someone you know who has high Ad who can get rapport with anyone, I still stand by my observation that most highly Ad people will tend to annoy or distance or confuse others in conversation whom are not highly Ad.

Whatever the emotional response others may have to people exhibiting their Ad tendencies while communicating... the effect the highly-Ad person has is often akin to not knowing when their conversation partner is done showing interest in a topic, or when the conversation has moved on. Highly Ad people are often a step or two behind (or ahead of!) the flow of conversation, expecting to drill down into more detail or question things further than others do. In other words, they're often out of synch with the rest of a group, conversationally.

There's another pattern some highly Ad people exhibit: Have you ever conversed with someone where... right after you ask them a question, they look away (as in eye-accessing) and then they never return their attention to you when they begin talking? I.e., they keep talking while staring off into space without returning eye contact to you?

Some would assess that as highly visual. And such might be the case if the person is pretty obviously accessing and referring to pictures (using hands to describe imagery, etc). But sometimes this behavior pattern is evidence that a conversation partner has just gotten half-lost in their own internal dialogue, in their own memory, and they'll keep talking externally while internally asking questions of themselves about the memory. The end result is -- they're no longer connected to their conversation partner at all. Lost rapport, sense of awkwardness, emotionally distant...

As I said -- these generalizations shouldn't be universally applied anywhere. These are just my descriptions of observed tendencies across SOME highly Ad people.

On a more measurable note -- for NLPers -- I've found highly Ad people to be consistently *very poor* calibrators for state calibration or lie detection or detecting hidden information exercise drills (before they've had training in reducing their Ad reliance).

So yes, I continue to see significant value in teaching people methods of quieting their internal dialogue down to silence. If not for conversational value with friends, etc... then it can take a poor lie detector and help them become a better one within 10 minutes.

I wouldn't want to "take away" someone's ability to rely heavily on internal dialogue. But I do want to provide them more options.

More options == more behavioral flexibility.

Regards,

- Jonathan Altfeld

Hopefully Eric will show up here with his own work and ideas about "Levels of Ad". I have started a bunch of research based on his original idea and moving it forward into other areas.

For this thread I will simply point out Eric suggests ("constructing" a model based on direct callibartion of thousands of students over the years) the following 7 levels of Ad:
* Reciting
* Remembering
* Debating
* Formulating
* Life Scripting or Posing
* Constructing
* Wondering
Each one has it's own nonverbal cues (that is how Eric found them) plus now we know it is related to how much brain activity is involved on each one. All are great depending for what.

If someone pretends to learn by only using the level of "reciting" also what many people will refer to "memorizing" then the person will only be as good as a atape recorder.
But if the person "debates", "formulates" and even eventaully "constructs" then we have a developer on our hands. Ad is not good or bad, depends for what and which one you use when.

Just my thoughts hoping Eric jumps in.

I had no idea that Ad broke down into these 7 components. I'll be interested to learn more from whoever plans to post some information. How interesting! Thank you for that!

gabe wrote:

For this thread I will simply point out Eric suggests ("constructing" a model based on direct callibartion of thousands of students over the years) the following 7 levels of Ad:
* Reciting
* Remembering
* Debating
* Formulating
* Life Scripting or Posing
* Constructing
* Wondering
Each one has it's own nonverbal cues (that is how Eric found them) plus now we know it is related to how much brain activity is involved on each one. All are great depending for what.

Gabe (and Eric!), thanks for that. Brilliant! I've been working on a set of "text accessing cues" - markers found in written form, especially in online communication, that offer clues to the processing of the writer (including, for instance, but not limited to, factors of punctuation, syntax, grammar, formatting, sentence length, etc.). Obviously there's quite a bit of crossover to a discussion of auditory digital cues, so this is a potentially very useful set of distinctions.

Hi Philip

The work Gabe writes about was so fascinating to learn on the course. We were able to tell whether someone was formulating or constructing and so on. As we worked on the exercise and were accessing the states for others to identify I was interested to find how the activities I do fitted the different categories. Since then I have been thinking about the categories, especially wonder.

Like you I have been wondering and considering what can be seen in online text communication.