Показаны записи 28811 - 28820 из 30957
Primary Operation
* Check own willingness to be responsible for the consequences and that the 'can of worms' about to be opened is of a manageable size, depending on the significance of the relationship and the context
* Check that the timing is appropriate to have the conversation and that the other person is ready to listen
* State own intention in delivering the communication, and if the content is of a delicate nature, disclose own concerns and feelings about communicating it. For example “I need to say something......I feel embarrassed saying this.....” Exemplar 2 said “Often by the time I’ve set them up for what I’m going to say they’re just begging for me to say it.”
*Say what there is to say and say it exactly andsay it all
* Listen to the response to gain an understanding of how it is for them
* Ask questions and invite them to say everything and self-disclose so they can experience being heard
* Encourage them to say everything
* Continue generating this dialogue until its all said on both sides and there’s a positive ‘shift’ in mood, physiology, understanding, direction of conversation or a declaration that its complete.
Secondary Operations
When the criterion'Mutual Honesty'is not being sufficiently satisfied:
* Keep going!
* Find other ways to say what needs saying
* Repeat intention or point out that what was intended to happen isn't happening to help “smooth things over”
* Check for things that haven’t been said (on both sides) that might make a difference, or invite the other person to share their thoughts
When the criterion is not being satisfied at all either:
* generate even more self-disclosure and honesty and continue
* or else ‘retreat’, ‘back off’, ‘bring it to a close’
The more important therelationship, the more inclination to keep going until some resolution is found.
If a decision is made to continue:
* Acknowledge that it hasn't been working
* Repeat intention
* Explore with the other person whether something else needs to happen to allow both to complete it and move on
When it doesn’t seem possible to meet the criterion:
* Look for alternative ways of handling the situation or other things that could be said
* If its really not possible, accept the differences between self and other and move on
All exemplars say such cases are extremely rare. Exemplar 4 identifies a difference between 'wanting to speak but holding back', and'choosingnot to speak', the latter being, for her, equally as responsible as speaking. If it seems impossible she may choose not to speak for now and stay open to a future opportunity. She rarely thinks its going to go away. If she doesn't have the person's spoken or implicit permission to speak, or if it isn't her 'place' to say it she will either let it go or discover who would be more appropriate to say it and support them in doing so.
* Check own willingness to be responsible for the consequences and that the 'can of worms' about to be opened is of a manageable size, depending on the significance of the relationship and the context
* Check that the timing is appropriate to have the conversation and that the other person is ready to listen
* State own intention in delivering the communication, and if the content is of a delicate nature, disclose own concerns and feelings about communicating it. For example “I need to say something......I feel embarrassed saying this.....” Exemplar 2 said “Often by the time I’ve set them up for what I’m going to say they’re just begging for me to say it.”
*Say what there is to say and say it exactly andsay it all
* Listen to the response to gain an understanding of how it is for them
* Ask questions and invite them to say everything and self-disclose so they can experience being heard
* Encourage them to say everything
* Continue generating this dialogue until its all said on both sides and there’s a positive ‘shift’ in mood, physiology, understanding, direction of conversation or a declaration that its complete.
Secondary Operations
When the criterion'Mutual Honesty'is not being sufficiently satisfied:
* Keep going!
* Find other ways to say what needs saying
* Repeat intention or point out that what was intended to happen isn't happening to help “smooth things over”
* Check for things that haven’t been said (on both sides) that might make a difference, or invite the other person to share their thoughts
When the criterion is not being satisfied at all either:
* generate even more self-disclosure and honesty and continue
* or else ‘retreat’, ‘back off’, ‘bring it to a close’
The more important therelationship, the more inclination to keep going until some resolution is found.
If a decision is made to continue:
* Acknowledge that it hasn't been working
* Repeat intention
* Explore with the other person whether something else needs to happen to allow both to complete it and move on
When it doesn’t seem possible to meet the criterion:
* Look for alternative ways of handling the situation or other things that could be said
* If its really not possible, accept the differences between self and other and move on
All exemplars say such cases are extremely rare. Exemplar 4 identifies a difference between 'wanting to speak but holding back', and'choosingnot to speak', the latter being, for her, equally as responsible as speaking. If it seems impossible she may choose not to speak for now and stay open to a future opportunity. She rarely thinks its going to go away. If she doesn't have the person's spoken or implicit permission to speak, or if it isn't her 'place' to say it she will either let it go or discover who would be more appropriate to say it and support them in doing so.
Motivating Cause-Effects
The Motivating Cause-Effect is‘Integrity in Relationshipsor 'Being true to myself', 'Being who I really am'. It can be more uncomfortable to be silent than to say whatever needs to be said, and as Exemplar 4 says,"If I can't be myself with you and reveal to you who I really am then ourrelationshiphas little value."
Surrounding Beliefs
Some of the Beliefs surrounding this ability:
‘Conversation is catalytic in nature’which assists in trusting that, even if it isn’t clear at the outset how a conversation will turn out, it is intrinsic in the process that something can be created together in a dialogue.
‘Honesty has more value than comfort’allows for the fact that straight communication can involve uncomfortable feelings and by placing a higher value on truth and self-expression than on personal comfort exemplars are willing to initiate potentially difficult conversations.
‘We are all human and are all doing our best’acknowledges our shared humanity and presupposes that we are each doing the best we can with what we have available to us. So there is no blame and the person can be honoured and a distinction made between them and their behaviour. This allows exemplars to discuss their own and others’ behaviours and responses objectively without criticising the person.
'I love people - theydeserveto be able to talk about things - its agiftto them'.Coming from a place of loving people permits exemplars to mention and discuss things that might otherwise be disallowed.
Strategies
Test
There's an initial increase in tension as exemplars stop having the conversation internally and start saying it externally, followed by a diffusion of anxiety as the words come out. The other person may appear shocked or nervous - a 'rabbit in the headlights' moment - with possible defensiveness, then a sense of relief and an ‘increase in energy’ on both sides as the conversation progresses. There's lots of eye contact and signals of connection as both people start talking about the same thing.
The test also involves shifting between internal and external focus of attention. For instance matching an internal representation of a desired response with the other person’s external behaviour. There’s a positive ‘shift’ in mood, physiology, understanding, direction of conversation or a declaration that its complete. Exemplar 2 said “...they say things that contribute to themselves or they say I’ve made a difference to them".
The Motivating Cause-Effect is‘Integrity in Relationshipsor 'Being true to myself', 'Being who I really am'. It can be more uncomfortable to be silent than to say whatever needs to be said, and as Exemplar 4 says,"If I can't be myself with you and reveal to you who I really am then ourrelationshiphas little value."
Surrounding Beliefs
Some of the Beliefs surrounding this ability:
‘Conversation is catalytic in nature’which assists in trusting that, even if it isn’t clear at the outset how a conversation will turn out, it is intrinsic in the process that something can be created together in a dialogue.
‘Honesty has more value than comfort’allows for the fact that straight communication can involve uncomfortable feelings and by placing a higher value on truth and self-expression than on personal comfort exemplars are willing to initiate potentially difficult conversations.
‘We are all human and are all doing our best’acknowledges our shared humanity and presupposes that we are each doing the best we can with what we have available to us. So there is no blame and the person can be honoured and a distinction made between them and their behaviour. This allows exemplars to discuss their own and others’ behaviours and responses objectively without criticising the person.
'I love people - theydeserveto be able to talk about things - its agiftto them'.Coming from a place of loving people permits exemplars to mention and discuss things that might otherwise be disallowed.
Strategies
Test
There's an initial increase in tension as exemplars stop having the conversation internally and start saying it externally, followed by a diffusion of anxiety as the words come out. The other person may appear shocked or nervous - a 'rabbit in the headlights' moment - with possible defensiveness, then a sense of relief and an ‘increase in energy’ on both sides as the conversation progresses. There's lots of eye contact and signals of connection as both people start talking about the same thing.
The test also involves shifting between internal and external focus of attention. For instance matching an internal representation of a desired response with the other person’s external behaviour. There’s a positive ‘shift’ in mood, physiology, understanding, direction of conversation or a declaration that its complete. Exemplar 2 said “...they say things that contribute to themselves or they say I’ve made a difference to them".
http://www.experiential-dynamics.org/models/berridge.htm
Authentic and Respectful Straight-Talking
by Dee Berridge
email: dee@ecstatic.demon.co.uk
The Ability
This kind of straight talking refers to speaking openly and directly to another person with the intention of being true to yourselfandrelating in a way that honours and ultimately benefits all concerned. It involves taking the risk of communicating potentially difficult, upsetting or unconventional thoughts, ideas, feelings or opinions (rather than witholding or evading). For exemplars of this Ability, the priority in such conversations is the relationship and/or well-being of the people involved.
Such conversations are usually highly personal and private, and are triggered by sensing something in the air that needs to be said. It is this that lets exemplars know its time to stop having the conversation internally and start saying it externally. It can be done very simply, or very eloquently and sometimes with great humour.
The following structure honours and respects the speaker, the listener and the relationship between them. It allows a person to speak from the heart and express what they have to say in their own unique way whilst encouraging others to do the same. A dialogue is created with speaking and listening on both sides and the conversation usually makes a positive difference. It can be very inspiring to hear someone speak their truth.
Exemplars
Exemplar 1:
Musician and Management Trainer: displays the ability in the course of running trainings and in collaborating with other musicians as well as in personal relationships. His style is creative with evocative descriptions and is often very humourous, his intention is to inspire others to participate.
Exemplar 2:
Human Resources Manager in a PR company: uses this ability socially and in dealing with employees at work. Her main concern when delivering this kind of communication is that the person she’s speaking to benefits from it. She describes it as “shooting from the hip” and going for “a quick and painless death!”
Exemplar 3:
Musician and Writer: manifests this ability in social, family and work relationships. He believes that for any relationship to be successful it is important to share who we really are even if it may be very uncomfortable, and that witholding and having things that can’t be said for fear of the consequences is what ultimately kills relationships. He can also be very witty and creative in his delivery.
Exemplar 4:
Management Consultant, Trainer and Mother: is highly adept at this ability and demonstrates it in all areas of her life, especially in training others in effective communicating and relating. She describes herself as "a self-appointed sayer of those unsaid things that need to be said because that's what I have to contribute" and with regard to using this ability in her role as consultant she says: "If they can't handle it they shouldn't be hiring me!"
Beliefs
Criterial Equivalence
The Criterion is‘Mutual Honesty’and is defined as ‘Being genuine and truthful; not hiding anything; being clear and accurate’ and 'Telling the truthas I see it’. The mutuality is highly significant. Exemplars are absolutely clear that they intend for there to be full opennesson both sides.
Enabling Cause-Effects
The Enabling Cause-Effect is‘Trust we’re on the same side and be willing to risk, and be responsible for, communicating’.Exemplars say it is important to be able to let go of their concerns about others’ judgments and opinions in order to fully manifest the ability. They need to be confident that the benefits of communicating are likely to be worth the risk of appearing foolish, unkind or in some way lacking.
This Ability relies on and generates trust in the sense of trust in a shared humanity as well as trust in communication itself as a generative medium.
Authentic and Respectful Straight-Talking
by Dee Berridge
email: dee@ecstatic.demon.co.uk
The Ability
This kind of straight talking refers to speaking openly and directly to another person with the intention of being true to yourselfandrelating in a way that honours and ultimately benefits all concerned. It involves taking the risk of communicating potentially difficult, upsetting or unconventional thoughts, ideas, feelings or opinions (rather than witholding or evading). For exemplars of this Ability, the priority in such conversations is the relationship and/or well-being of the people involved.
Such conversations are usually highly personal and private, and are triggered by sensing something in the air that needs to be said. It is this that lets exemplars know its time to stop having the conversation internally and start saying it externally. It can be done very simply, or very eloquently and sometimes with great humour.
The following structure honours and respects the speaker, the listener and the relationship between them. It allows a person to speak from the heart and express what they have to say in their own unique way whilst encouraging others to do the same. A dialogue is created with speaking and listening on both sides and the conversation usually makes a positive difference. It can be very inspiring to hear someone speak their truth.
Exemplars
Exemplar 1:
Musician and Management Trainer: displays the ability in the course of running trainings and in collaborating with other musicians as well as in personal relationships. His style is creative with evocative descriptions and is often very humourous, his intention is to inspire others to participate.
Exemplar 2:
Human Resources Manager in a PR company: uses this ability socially and in dealing with employees at work. Her main concern when delivering this kind of communication is that the person she’s speaking to benefits from it. She describes it as “shooting from the hip” and going for “a quick and painless death!”
Exemplar 3:
Musician and Writer: manifests this ability in social, family and work relationships. He believes that for any relationship to be successful it is important to share who we really are even if it may be very uncomfortable, and that witholding and having things that can’t be said for fear of the consequences is what ultimately kills relationships. He can also be very witty and creative in his delivery.
Exemplar 4:
Management Consultant, Trainer and Mother: is highly adept at this ability and demonstrates it in all areas of her life, especially in training others in effective communicating and relating. She describes herself as "a self-appointed sayer of those unsaid things that need to be said because that's what I have to contribute" and with regard to using this ability in her role as consultant she says: "If they can't handle it they shouldn't be hiring me!"
Beliefs
Criterial Equivalence
The Criterion is‘Mutual Honesty’and is defined as ‘Being genuine and truthful; not hiding anything; being clear and accurate’ and 'Telling the truthas I see it’. The mutuality is highly significant. Exemplars are absolutely clear that they intend for there to be full opennesson both sides.
Enabling Cause-Effects
The Enabling Cause-Effect is‘Trust we’re on the same side and be willing to risk, and be responsible for, communicating’.Exemplars say it is important to be able to let go of their concerns about others’ judgments and opinions in order to fully manifest the ability. They need to be confident that the benefits of communicating are likely to be worth the risk of appearing foolish, unkind or in some way lacking.
This Ability relies on and generates trust in the sense of trust in a shared humanity as well as trust in communication itself as a generative medium.
</>
Re: Сравнение подходов по существенным признакам/компо
metanymous в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)
Ранее (несколько лет назад) их подход и несколько моделей (правда, за авторством не Гордона и Грэхема) были доступны на сайте http://www.experiential-dynamics.org/ Позже сайт прикрыли, но странички с моделями все еще доступны, если знать их точные адреса ;-)
"Наши руки, не для скуки..." - как бы так это найти эти адреса? :)
"Наши руки, не для скуки..." - как бы так это найти эти адреса? :)
</>
Re: Сравнение подходов по существенным признакам/компо
metanymous в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)
Contents (Содержание):
http://expandyourworld.net/toc.php
Посмотрим:
Contents
Acknowledgements
Using the DVD
PREFACE
1. WHAT IS MODELING?
WHAT IS A MODEL?
WHY MODEL?
WHY MODELING IS POSSIBLE
Structure and Experience
2. THE EXPERIENTIAL ARRAY
Flow of Effect
3. THE PROCESS
Sub-Abilities
Selecting Exemplars
Framing for Exemplars
ELICITATION
Asking Questions
Stepping In
Patterning
Capturing Description
Necessary and Sufficient
The Elicitation Protocol
4. BELIEFS
Underlying Beliefs
Equivalences
Cause-Effects
Unstated Connections
The "Belief Template"
5. BELIEFS: EQUIVALENCES
CRITERIA
Elicitation Questions for the Criterion
"Being Passionate About Something":Criterion
DEFINITION
Elicitation Questions for the Definition
"Being Passionate About Something":Definition
EVIDENCE
Threshold
Specificity
Elicitation Questions for the Evidence
"Being Passionate About Something":Evidence
6. BELIEFS: CAUSE-EFFECTS
ENABLING CAUSE-EFFECTS
Elicitation Questions for Enabling Cause-Effects
"Being Passionate About Something":Enabling Cause-Effect
MOTIVATING CAUSE-EFFECT
Elicitation Questions for the Motivating Cause-Effect
"Being Passionate About Something":Motivating Cause-Effect
7. SUPPORTING BELIEFs
Noticing Supporting Beliefs
"Being Passionate About Something":Supporting Beliefs
8. STRATEGIES
Sequences and Sets
PRIMARY STRATEGY
Elicitation Questions for the Primary Strategy
"Being Passionate About Something":Primary Strategy
SECONDARY STRATEGIES
Elicitation Questions for Secondary Strategies
"Being Passionate About Something":Secondary Strategies
9. EMOTIONS
SIGNAL EMOTIONS
Noticing Signal Emotions
SUSTAINING EMOTIONS
Elicitation Questions for the Sustaining Emotion
"Being Passionate About Something":Sustaining Emotion
10. EXTERNAL BEHAVIOR
Elicitation Question for External Behavior
"Being Passionate About Something":External Behavior
11. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Noticing Contributing Factors
"Being Passionate About Something":Contributing Factors
12. CREATING THE INITIAL ARRAY
"Being Passionate About Something":The Initial Array
13. COMPLETING THE ARRAY
Reviewing the Initial Array
"Being Passionate About Something":Reviewing
Clarifying the Initial Array
"Being Passionate About Something":Clarifying
14. ACQUISITION
Reference Experiences
ACCESS: ESTABLISHING THE MODEL IN YOUR EXPERIENCe
Rehearsal
The Acquisition Protocol
INTEGRATION: BECOMING COMPETENT
HINDRANCES
AFTERWORD
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I: GOOD QUESTIONS
APPENDIX II: EXPERIENTIAL ARRAY: ELICITATION DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX III: EXPERIENTIAL ARRAY: ELICITATION QUESTIONS
APPENDIX IV: EXAMPLE ARRAY: LENNY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Мда, специфично.
http://expandyourworld.net/toc.php
Посмотрим:
Contents
Acknowledgements
Using the DVD
PREFACE
1. WHAT IS MODELING?
WHAT IS A MODEL?
WHY MODEL?
WHY MODELING IS POSSIBLE
Structure and Experience
2. THE EXPERIENTIAL ARRAY
Flow of Effect
3. THE PROCESS
Sub-Abilities
Selecting Exemplars
Framing for Exemplars
ELICITATION
Asking Questions
Stepping In
Patterning
Capturing Description
Necessary and Sufficient
The Elicitation Protocol
4. BELIEFS
Underlying Beliefs
Equivalences
Cause-Effects
Unstated Connections
The "Belief Template"
5. BELIEFS: EQUIVALENCES
CRITERIA
Elicitation Questions for the Criterion
"Being Passionate About Something":Criterion
DEFINITION
Elicitation Questions for the Definition
"Being Passionate About Something":Definition
EVIDENCE
Threshold
Specificity
Elicitation Questions for the Evidence
"Being Passionate About Something":Evidence
6. BELIEFS: CAUSE-EFFECTS
ENABLING CAUSE-EFFECTS
Elicitation Questions for Enabling Cause-Effects
"Being Passionate About Something":Enabling Cause-Effect
MOTIVATING CAUSE-EFFECT
Elicitation Questions for the Motivating Cause-Effect
"Being Passionate About Something":Motivating Cause-Effect
7. SUPPORTING BELIEFs
Noticing Supporting Beliefs
"Being Passionate About Something":Supporting Beliefs
8. STRATEGIES
Sequences and Sets
PRIMARY STRATEGY
Elicitation Questions for the Primary Strategy
"Being Passionate About Something":Primary Strategy
SECONDARY STRATEGIES
Elicitation Questions for Secondary Strategies
"Being Passionate About Something":Secondary Strategies
9. EMOTIONS
SIGNAL EMOTIONS
Noticing Signal Emotions
SUSTAINING EMOTIONS
Elicitation Questions for the Sustaining Emotion
"Being Passionate About Something":Sustaining Emotion
10. EXTERNAL BEHAVIOR
Elicitation Question for External Behavior
"Being Passionate About Something":External Behavior
11. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Noticing Contributing Factors
"Being Passionate About Something":Contributing Factors
12. CREATING THE INITIAL ARRAY
"Being Passionate About Something":The Initial Array
13. COMPLETING THE ARRAY
Reviewing the Initial Array
"Being Passionate About Something":Reviewing
Clarifying the Initial Array
"Being Passionate About Something":Clarifying
14. ACQUISITION
Reference Experiences
ACCESS: ESTABLISHING THE MODEL IN YOUR EXPERIENCe
Rehearsal
The Acquisition Protocol
INTEGRATION: BECOMING COMPETENT
HINDRANCES
AFTERWORD
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I: GOOD QUESTIONS
APPENDIX II: EXPERIENTIAL ARRAY: ELICITATION DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX III: EXPERIENTIAL ARRAY: ELICITATION QUESTIONS
APPENDIX IV: EXAMPLE ARRAY: LENNY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Мда, специфично.
</>
Re: Сравнение подходов по существенным признакам/компо
metanymous в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)
--В настоящем контексте представляет интерес произвести сравнение (свести в таблицу) различных подходов к моделированию и в частности моделирование: ...кого еще?
--Вот в Вики увидел что у Дэвида Гордона (в соавторстве с Грэхемом Дэвисом) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gordon) в 2005 году вышла книга "Expanding Your World: Modeling the Structure of Experience" (Расширение Вашего Мира: Моделирование Структуры Опыта). Книге посвящен сайт http://expandyourworld.net/
Да, модеилрование по Гордону рассмотреть стоит.
Introduction to Modeling (Введение в моделирование):
http://expandyourworld.net/intro-modeling.php
В электронном журнале на сайте НЛП в образовании есть несколько развернутых материалов от Гордона, которые создают достаточно читабельную картину того, как моделирует Гордон.
--Вот в Вики увидел что у Дэвида Гордона (в соавторстве с Грэхемом Дэвисом) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gordon) в 2005 году вышла книга "Expanding Your World: Modeling the Structure of Experience" (Расширение Вашего Мира: Моделирование Структуры Опыта). Книге посвящен сайт http://expandyourworld.net/
Да, модеилрование по Гордону рассмотреть стоит.
Introduction to Modeling (Введение в моделирование):
http://expandyourworld.net/intro-modeling.php
В электронном журнале на сайте НЛП в образовании есть несколько развернутых материалов от Гордона, которые создают достаточно читабельную картину того, как моделирует Гордон.
--Нет, мы в этом месте говорим об особенной эээ Деятельной наблюдательности, в которой ежели что-то замечено (Vex/Aex), то в тот же момент и без малейшего промедления по поводу замеченного следует ответная реакция (Kex).
--Но если я осмыслил, когда и как лучше мне сигналить, то такое осмысление сигналов-значений в ответ на которые я буду сигналить - оно ну по крайней мере частично приводит к языкоидной наблюдательности.
Моя реплика относится к более исходному/первоначальному/примитивному процессу. Твоя реплика относится к возможному варианту его развития.
Хотя поначалу можно сигналить в ответ на какие-то частные/одиночные сигналы, но это не оптимально.
По началу можно и нужно сигналить на частные регулярно повторяющиеся сигналы.
Надоест заниматься частным промыслом непонятно какой дичи, и захочется системнее расставлять силки на конкретные типы улова
Ну, а тогда либо переходить на языкоиды, либо заниматься исследованием внутренних семантик сигналов с помощью того или иного вопрошания.
--Но если я осмыслил, когда и как лучше мне сигналить, то такое осмысление сигналов-значений в ответ на которые я буду сигналить - оно ну по крайней мере частично приводит к языкоидной наблюдательности.
Моя реплика относится к более исходному/первоначальному/примитивному процессу. Твоя реплика относится к возможному варианту его развития.
Хотя поначалу можно сигналить в ответ на какие-то частные/одиночные сигналы, но это не оптимально.
По началу можно и нужно сигналить на частные регулярно повторяющиеся сигналы.
Надоест заниматься частным промыслом непонятно какой дичи, и захочется системнее расставлять силки на конкретные типы улова
Ну, а тогда либо переходить на языкоиды, либо заниматься исследованием внутренних семантик сигналов с помощью того или иного вопрошания.
</>
Re: Сравнение подходов по существенным признакам/компо
metanymous в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)
3 Кодификация > отзеркаливание > паттерн > кодирование паттерна в модель > бетта моделирование
4 Кодификация > отзеркаливание > паттерн > кодирование паттерна в модель > кодирование модели в техники и шаблоны > бетта моделирование
Пункты 3-4 - довольно длинные последовательности. Интересно уточнить, где такие бывают.
Хм, так вот, проблема в том, что пп3-4 описывают типичный процесс моделирования. Ну, типичный в том виде, в каком его излагают, например, ДГ и РД.
Похоже, что это случай сложных моделей, у которых много частных случаев, требующих донастройки-обкатки. Вероятно, это надо в случае т..н. не стопроцентных моделей.
Это случай, когда совершенно отказываются от прямого выхода на паттернование эээ "на взгляд"/вприглядку - как раз то, на чем настаивает ДГ.
</>
Re: Сравнение подходов по существенным признакам/компо
metanymous в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)
--Вид предварительной кодификации: Морфологическая & циклическая
--Это вроде умения обнаруживать синтаксис, например синтаксис поведения?
Морфологию и синтаксис поведения.
Умение обнаруживать транзакции и цепочки транзакций - Берн моделист?
Совершенно верно. Так же, как и Фрейд. Они просто недооформляли свои богатейшие материалы до моделей.
Где-то я уже написал, что с сигналами Эго, СуперЭго и Ид (а они у нас есть) мы можем вдохнуть в эти классические подходы новую жизнь. В частности, преодолеть в этих подходах противоречие между индивидуальным и обобщенным описанием подсознательных структур/их содержания.
--Это вроде умения обнаруживать синтаксис, например синтаксис поведения?
Морфологию и синтаксис поведения.
Умение обнаруживать транзакции и цепочки транзакций - Берн моделист?
Совершенно верно. Так же, как и Фрейд. Они просто недооформляли свои богатейшие материалы до моделей.
Где-то я уже написал, что с сигналами Эго, СуперЭго и Ид (а они у нас есть) мы можем вдохнуть в эти классические подходы новую жизнь. В частности, преодолеть в этих подходах противоречие между индивидуальным и обобщенным описанием подсознательных структур/их содержания.
Хотя модели подсознания есть разные.
Да, и модели разные, и информация в соответствии с этими моделями разная.
К чему это я? Просто такой языкоидный подход сокращает сложность калибровки, и не надо глядеть за всеми возможными сигналами.
Языкоид это не маркер - в самом общем виде.
Потому что если думать о постоянном потоке сообщений как о простых маркерах, маркеры ценности, отношения, конгруэнтности то есть просто, калибруешь тогда не весь возможый спектр сигналов, а лишь те, что могут обозначать какие-то фундаментальные пары, типа да-нет, важно-неважно.
Почему это ты решил:
--якобы маркеры обозначают только "темы" - ценности, отношения, конгруэнтность?
--якобы маркеры обозначают "пары" - да/нет,
А в ответ на такие языкоиды можно посылать свои конкретные сигналы.
Услышал нет - задал, например в ответ мета-вопрос.
Но в этом ты совершенно прав. Ежели мы:
--выделяем любой неизвестного значения сигнал
--фиксируем его каким-то встречным ответом/якорем
--затем начинаем задавать по различной/любой системе вопросы, которые адресованы именно к смысловому фрагменту, маркированному сигналом
--мы таким путем ведем исследование внутренних семантик с данным сигналом связанных
Таким путем мы можем:
--исследовать внутренний мир Чарли
--делать концентрированную терапию, ибо ежели мы выделили "проблемныЙ сигнал, у нас есть уникальная возможность провести очень концентрированное исследование проблемного содержания, в котором "проблемный" сигнал является проводником (нитью Ариадны), которая выведет из любого проблемного/подсознательного лабиринта кратчайшим путем
--вести познавательные диалоги, буквально, используя мозг Чарли в качестве сверх мощного биокомпьютера -
--и т.п.
Увидел неконгруэнтность - отметамоделировал.
Да, в качестве сигнала можно использовать ческо зафиксированные критерии/проявления неконгруентности.
О! Языкоид помогает лучше обнаружить точку выбора. Вот!
Хм, я могу тебе показать ЯзыкоидТочекВыбора :)
Да, и модели разные, и информация в соответствии с этими моделями разная.
К чему это я? Просто такой языкоидный подход сокращает сложность калибровки, и не надо глядеть за всеми возможными сигналами.
Языкоид это не маркер - в самом общем виде.
Потому что если думать о постоянном потоке сообщений как о простых маркерах, маркеры ценности, отношения, конгруэнтности то есть просто, калибруешь тогда не весь возможый спектр сигналов, а лишь те, что могут обозначать какие-то фундаментальные пары, типа да-нет, важно-неважно.
Почему это ты решил:
--якобы маркеры обозначают только "темы" - ценности, отношения, конгруэнтность?
--якобы маркеры обозначают "пары" - да/нет,
А в ответ на такие языкоиды можно посылать свои конкретные сигналы.
Услышал нет - задал, например в ответ мета-вопрос.
Но в этом ты совершенно прав. Ежели мы:
--выделяем любой неизвестного значения сигнал
--фиксируем его каким-то встречным ответом/якорем
--затем начинаем задавать по различной/любой системе вопросы, которые адресованы именно к смысловому фрагменту, маркированному сигналом
--мы таким путем ведем исследование внутренних семантик с данным сигналом связанных
Таким путем мы можем:
--исследовать внутренний мир Чарли
--делать концентрированную терапию, ибо ежели мы выделили "проблемныЙ сигнал, у нас есть уникальная возможность провести очень концентрированное исследование проблемного содержания, в котором "проблемный" сигнал является проводником (нитью Ариадны), которая выведет из любого проблемного/подсознательного лабиринта кратчайшим путем
--вести познавательные диалоги, буквально, используя мозг Чарли в качестве сверх мощного биокомпьютера -
20 Модели ПознавательныхДиалогов
http://community.livejournal.com/openmeta/37584.html?thread=420048#t420048
--и т.п.
Увидел неконгруэнтность - отметамоделировал.
Да, в качестве сигнала можно использовать ческо зафиксированные критерии/проявления неконгруентности.
О! Языкоид помогает лучше обнаружить точку выбора. Вот!
Хм, я могу тебе показать ЯзыкоидТочекВыбора :)
Дочитали до конца.