|
|
| |
| |
| |
In analytic modeling, this phase comes first. Through observing an expert, questioning, and noting the experts responses, an explicit conscious model is developed and repeatedly tested, first in the experts experience, and then in the modelers experience, and later in the experience of someone who is taught the model.
Many of the very effective submodalities methods developed by Richard Bandler were the results of modeling that did not utilize unconscious acquisition (swish, phobia cure, compulsion blowout and other threshold patterns, etc.). My wife, Connirae, and I used a different kind of modeling in the early 1980s to discover the structure of timelines, how to adjust the relative importance of criteria, internal/external reference, and how to respond resourcefully to criticism.
More recently I have modeled the fundamental foundation of all our experience and thinking in my forthcoming book, Six Blind Elephants: understanding ourselves and others. (1) In this two volume book I model the nominalization called generalization, using a distinction between scope and category. Scope is the extent of what we attend to in sensory-based experience (and/or memory or forecast), which can then be categorized in a wide variety of ways, which we then respond to. Although it is a simple distinction, the ramifications are endless, and it provides a way to understand all change method—in or out of the field of NLP—using the same paradigm, a sort of unified field theory of change.
In St. Clair and Grinders model of modeling, the behavioral skill is first assimilated unconsciously and demonstrated by the modeler. Then the modeler codifies their own behavior into a explicit and conscious model that can be used to transfer the skill to someone else.
Since the eventual goal is an explicit and codified model, the first step of unconscious acquisition is an unnecessary extra step. Since analytic modeling omits the step of unconscious acquisition of the behavior by the modeler, it is more efficient, as long as it results in an effective model.
Since St. Clair and Grinder assert that unconscious acquisition improves the quality of the resulting model, they need to show that this is so by comparing the effectiveness of models obtained by these different processes.
For instance, is St. Clair and Grinders new code model (7, pp. 228-246) superior to teaching someone how to spell by simple strategy installation? Does it work better to eliminate a compulsion than Bandlers compulsion blowout model? Is it more effective than Connirae Andreas aligning perceptual positions model for clarifying personal boundaries?
Alternatively, they could use unconscious acquisition to model a new solution to several problems for which other models have already been developed, such as our models for grief or shame resolution, or for transforming anger or resentment into forgiveness. If their resulting explicit model is the same as ours, then neither process of modeling could claim superiority. If the models are different, they could be tested in clients to find out which produces the best results.
When a modeler models their own behavior, they will be applying the same perceptual and analytic categories of the modeler during the modeling process that unconscious acquisition purports to avoid. The modelers biases are not avoided, only postponed.
In addition, most people are notoriously unable to report accurately on their own inner processeswhether skill or problem—because they are so familiar with them, making self-modeling even more subject to the modelers biases. As an old saying goes, If you have flies in your eyes, you cant see the flies in your eyes. Usually it is much easier for someone else to model their behavior by asking questions and observing, which is one way to do analytic modeling.
Any explicit conscious model can be examined to identify any harmful or useless aspects in order to modify them. This process is likely to be more conscious than unconscious, but ideally will include an ample measure of both, as St. Clair and Grinder describe. (7, p. 180) When an original expert is taught how to omit or improve any harmful aspects or steps, their behavior becomes even better than it was originally. I have often used this benefit as an inducement to an expert to agree to modeling of their behavior.
If St. Clair and Grinder propose that this kind of modification can occur unconsciously, that indicates that unconscious biases are also significant in creating the resulting model, and at least some of those biases are likely to be detrimental.
In my modeling of self-concept (3), I used many different experts, because I found that each one had aspects of self-concept that worked very well, while other aspects did not. If I had modeled any one of these people—either consciously or unconsciously—the resulting model would have been seriously flawed. By combining the superior aspects of many different people, I was able to create a model that was far better than any one of the people who contributed to the model.
| |
| |
| |
|
|
