|
|
| |
| |
| |
The meta model is described as “the first model in NLP” (7, pp. 142-163), so it presumably satisfies their criteria for a new model. However, they repeatedly describe it as an application and adaptation of a model already existing in transformational grammar:
The meta model can, for example, be usefully understood to be an application of the modeling of linguistic patterning inspired by Transformational Grammar. (7, p. 51)
There already existed an explicit code for capturing verbal patterning: the descriptive and formal vocabulary for syntactic studies used by professional linguists. (7, p. 146)
Thirty years ago, Bandler and Grinder wrote:
Fortunately, an explicit model of the structure of language has been developed independent of the context of psychology and therapy by transformational grammarians. Adapted for use in therapy, it offers us an explicit Meta-model for the enrichment and expansion of our therapeutic skills... (5, p. 19)
Notice that the words “explicit code,” “explicit model,” and “explicit Meta-model” in these quotes all indicate a conscious and codified model, in contrast to an implicit unconscious model.
Important advances in knowledge are often made by applying a model that has been developed in one field to another field, and I think that the application of the meta model to the context of personal change work was an excellent and very important example of this. However, the statements quoted above make it clear that the meta-model was not an original model by St. Clair and Grinder’s own definitions, and that it was not developed by unconscious acquisition. In short, the meta model does not satisfy their own definition of modeling.
| |
| |
| |
|
|
