KE & Strategies

[jaltfeld]

Posted originally on my old KE Support mailing list in 2003.

This was originally posted by John Schertzer.

Jonathan (and everybody),

For a while I've been scratching my head, thinking "this KE stuff is great for belief and decision systems, which is the 'what' to do, but what about the *how*?" It just occurred to me, went BAM, that the IF/THEN/MEANING structure also elucidates strategies.

If I think about something I want to do, for instance, in words, with a specific tonality, and then see an image of it, and then get a feeling, in traditionaly NLP strategy notation it would go Ad -> At -> Vc -> K. But that could also be seen as a belief/decision structure:

IF Auditory Digital x
THEN Auditory Tonal y
MEANING I hear y when I think x

IF Auditory Digital x AND Auditory Tonal y
THEN Visual Construct z
MEANING I see z when talking to myself about x in y tone of voice

IF Visual Construct z AND Auditory x+y
THEN Kino xyz
MEANING The synesthesia of seeing z and hearing x+y creates feeling response xyz

I can then elaborate by saying...

IF Visual Construct z(closer and brighter)
THEN Kino xyz * 2
MEANING If I make image z closer and brighter I feel twice and motivated and/or good

I believe this gives the traditional notational style added depth, though it might be awkward to write it out like this. In a way the yield sign (->) implies causal chaining, but I like something about the robustness of the 3-part structure. Maybe a new way of mind-mapping it would work. What do you think of this in general?

Reading your seminar transcript I came across a note about how it's no longer true that you've not done an NLP modeling project. Is this recent? Could you give us a hint?

- JS

[jaltfeld]

Hi John,

John Schertzer wrote:

It just occurred to me that the IF/THEN/MEANING structure also elicits strategies.

Yes indeedy. Strategies are often (but not always) loops involving 2-3 rules.

And not only that. A sequence of beliefs, properly elicited, also produces/elicits an accurate Values Heirarchy!

Want to know how? Once you're done eliciting any sequence of related/dependent rules, then just sequentially list the values
satisfied in each "MEANS" section, from left to right in any sequence of rules. Easy-peasy.

The difference being that with KE, as opposed to when eliciting only a values hierarchy by itself, you can actually see why/how a person's values need to be satisfied in a certain sequence.

If I think about something I want to do, for instance, in words, with a specific tonality, and then see an image of it, and then get a feeling, in traditionaly NLP strategy notation it would go Ad -> At -> Vc -> K. But that could also be seen as a belief/decision structure: [omitted for brevity]

Beautifully done. That is one very good way of notating it. Now, I might have done the notation with more or less detail given the purpose/context of the elicitation, but on the whole, you got it.

I might also have simply used your 3rd rule as the summary of the entire strategy, but then, I would have needed to delve deeper, & elicit the 1st & 2nd rules you listed, in order to understand how/when the 3rd rule would fire. The 3rd rule you showed was the key to the whole thing, though.

I believe this gives the traditional notational style added depth, though it might be awkward to write it out like this. In a way the yield sign (->) implies causal chaining, but I like something about the robustness of the 3-part structure. Maybe a new way of mind-mapping it would work. What do you think of this in general?

Not sure about a new way of mind-mapping. I too like the 3-part structure not only in terms of robustness, but because it tells me their strategies, their values, and their decision making process in general, in a consistent way that I can explain to them and have them agree fully, even if I use different words.

Reading your seminar transcript I came across a note about how it's no longer true that you've not done an NLP modeling project. Is this recent? Could you give us a hint?

I've done 2 NLP-based modeling projects to date. (2003!)

(1) The Persuasion Summit Videoset. The seminar was the result of modeling Christopher Tomasulo, an influence expert and telemarketing executive (now moving onto other business activities).

(2) Charisma. I modeled a number of very charismatic people (not people you'd know from any famous setting), and recorded a presentation on the topic of how to increase our Charisma. This was not edited, but made into a "raw/unedited" 3-CD set called "Charisma Fuel" (It's not currently available on my cart, but it's offered as a bonus to those buying my Flirtopia DVDs).

====================================

[comment on July 9, 2010] Since 2003, I've also done other modeling projects, including my "Metaphor Machine" CD-set, a set on Emotional State-Chaining ("Automatic Yes CDs") and most recently in 2010 a modeling project on NLP & Humor which has resulted in a workshop for becoming outrageously funny!

[bwoodson]

Nice, I've been thinking about this to myself for a while now. . . . so now i'll be thinking it through in front of you two (tautology -> description:)

I read Suzette Elgin (Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense) who talked about a therapist who used a three part structure to help his patients clear up their communication . . my rememberance/modification is that it goes:
"i feel X when you Y because I think Y means Z"

i'll call this the 'do-feel-means' as in you do X, I feel Y, it means Z - which of course would be external perception, internal state, internal state/(wait for it)

I've also realized that KE strategies and the do-feel-means are analogous to John Searle's pattern "x means y in c" where C=some context with which he models social structures and communal belief systems like how is it that money(!) means something [which we can extend to model belief systems that make groups work]

Anyway, back on topic I started thinking about the do-feels-means as an if-then-means structure. The notable difference between the if-then-means and the do-feel-means is that the do-feel-means explicates a sequence, whereas if-then-means only holds sequence as a potential application.

Going a little bit further, we can break the 'do-feel-means' apart into: someone else's external behavior - my perception of it - my evaluation of it - my internal state) . . which sequentially would imply a do-percieve-means-feel structure . . . [this level of specificity may or may not be that important but I just wanted to put it out there]. But when we break it apart like that, we can also code it as a do-perceive-means-activity

All this is simply to start to flush out how if-then-means structures can map both belief systems and action-systems!

Now, putting in the perceive portion allows us to model what exactly someone was reacting to (consciously if it's a self-report and unconsciously if they're being modeled by someone else) with a little more granularity/specificity which is what John seemed like he was attempting.

Now here's how to tie the two together:
I'm going to assume that the important part is the action (and when we drop the other person's behavior), we have perceived-evaluated-response . . now, the complex belief structure (John's if-then-means) is balled up into the 'evaluation' step.

We have two steps of evaluation: first the perception (John's insight) then second the belief system (Jonathan's use of Dilt's work -right?) and then a person's IS/EB

sensory perception -> evaluation criteria -> internal state/external behavior

What Jonathan's model helps us do is to unpack the evaluation criteria (of course that's not all it does) of the different possible conditions of what a person is perceiving (John's insight).

I think i'm getting a little unclear here, so sorry. But to summarize:
1. the if-then-means is also an if-then-does
2. the if-then-means is both horizontal (sequential) and vertical (belief systems)


this next sentence I wrote before my edit but thought I should keep it . .
we can more technically describe this as:
if/when[and perhaps more importantly how] an action/event/object is perceived and evaluated [according to if-then-means criteria] this (internal state arises/behavior is triggered)

also visually i think of it something like this:

Code: Select all

         0               0
         00              00
         0               0
conditons^  -> evaluation^  ->  activity

where the first set of 0's represent the perception variables (VAKOG/IE + submodalities)
and the second set of 0's represent the loop(s) of belief systems
take note of the ^ which denotes going up into the set of conditions/evaluations

One thing i really liked about Jonathan's course book was the inclusion of the diagram - love it!

[bwoodson]

okay, they totally botched the formatting and spacing of my lovely diagram, the 0's were above the ^'s

[jaltfeld]

Howdy. I just fixed the formatting by putting your diagram into a "code" box. I'll reply on the content of your post another time!