|
|
| |
| |
| |
Unconscious acquisition is done implicitly and unconsciously as the first step. In analytic modeling, codification is done explicitly and consciously as the first step.
Since all behavior and communication has both conscious and unconscious aspects, even if modeling is done consciously, there will be many unconscious aspects, and unconscious acquisition will also have some conscious aspects. As St. Clair and Grinder point out, These two extremes define a continuum of possibilities. St. Clair and Grinder propose that unconscious acquisition is superior because it does not impose the bias of the modeler on the explicit codification into a model.
The essential difference of consequence between the process of NLP modeling and Analytic modeling is the relative contributions of the model and modeler to the final work product.
This difference resides principally in the degree of imposition of the perceptual and analytic categories of the modeler during the modeling process—in the case of NLP modeling, the imposition is minimal; in the case of Analytic modeling, the imposition is maximal. (6, p. 3)
Firstly, this statement seems to assume that the unconscious does not have perceptual and analytic categories. I think there is ample evidence from hypnosis and experimentation that the unconscious does have these, and they can be at least as biased as conscious ones. So even the minimal imposition of the modeler in unconscious acquisition will be substantial.
Secondly, any relevant imposition will be evident and discernable in the outcome: the behavior of the person acquiring the model will be different from the behavior of the original expert model.
Thirdly, any imposition can be either harmful or beneficial. If the modeler degrades what the expert model does (either through conscious or unconscious imposition), the person acquiring the model will not be able to produce results that are as effective as the behavior of the original expert model.
On the other hand, if the behavior of the person acquiring the model is the same or better than the expert model, we can conclude that any imposition either was irrelevant to the outcome, or improved it. If the modelers bias improves the behavior modeled, then that will also be evident in the results of teaching the model to someone else. Either way, the effects of any bias will be evident in the results, and the process of eliciting the model is irrelevant, unless it can be shown by experimentation that one is superior to the other.
St. Clair and Grinders description also presupposes that a single expert is adequate for generating a model. Unconscious acquisition is limited to replicating what an expert has already learned to do, and this is usually somewhat less than optimal. No matter how well an expert model can do something, their behavior nearly always includes aspects or steps that are redundant, useless, or even detrimental to the effectiveness of the behavior modeled. Different experts differ in how they accomplish the same task, and every expert will have elements or aspects that other experts do not have. Some of these will support the excellence of the behavior, while others will be detrimental or irrelevant.
When a single expert is used, unconscious acquisition is limited to duplicating that particular experts way of achieving the outcome. It will include any aspects that are not useful, and not include positive aspects that some other expert model would have. When the unconscious model is later codified into an explicit and conscious model, these shortcomings in the expert models behavior will be replicated in the model.
In addition, unconscious acquisition is limited to situations in which there is an expert who has already developed a skill. It cant be used generatively to develop models for something that no one is yet able to do. Other modeling methods can be useful in opening a door to totally new possibilities, based on extrapolation from existing knowledge and principles, or some other way.
Notice that in all the alternatives discussed above, the only criterion that is useful in evaluating the model is the outcome: the results that the model produces (as St. Clair and Grinder stated clearly only four years ago).
This leads us to consider the second process, demonstration.
| |
| |
| |
|
|
