That’s unfortunate, because modeling is the core skill of NLP. In fact, Richard Bandler and John Grinder used it to create Neuro-Linguistic Programming. NLP’s rich array of techniques, models, and applications got developed and refined using modeling.

How ironic that NLPers so rarely learn NLP’s core skill and strategy. But fortunately…

If you learned elicitation, you learned NLP modeling skills

Elicitation is a process of figuring out what someone does and how they do it.

For instance, Jane and Mary both feel happy, but they use individual strategies to do it. When doing NLP with Jane, you need to know that she feels happy by saying pleasant words to herself in a happy voice. When doing NLP with Mary, you need to know that she feels happy by watching color movies of herself having fun.

Mary’s strategy might work for Jane, but you will have the easiest time getting Jane into a happy resource state by using her own strategy. You discover Jane and Mary’s strategies by eliciting them.

NLP modeling is also a process of figuring out how someone does something. Modeling typically involves more detail than elicitation. However, you can use all your elicitation skills to do modeling. If you already do elicitation well, you will probably find modeling easy as well as fun.

The key difference between elicitation and modeling

Elicitation requires getting enough detail about how someone does something that they can reliably access their state, skill, or resource. You know you have successfully elicited Jane’s happy state when you can get her to go into it, reliably and repeatedly, using the cues you elicited. Because Jane already knows how to do her happy state, you can usually elicit just a few components and get the entire effect you want.

Modeling requires getting enough detail about how someone does something that someone else can reliably do it. Jane already knows how to do her happy state, so you just have to trigger it. But Mary doesn’t know how to access happy states using Jane’s method. Triggering Jane’s state won’t work for Mary, who has a different set of anchors. Instead, Mary has to build the new state. As an NLP modeler, you need to elicit enough detail from Jane that you can teach Mary to do what Jane does.

How much detail is enough?

To know whether you’ve elicited enough detail to make a valid model (a strategy someone else can use), simply try on the state, strategy, or resource you have elicited. Do you get the outcome?

If you try on Jane’s happiness technique and feel nothing, or very little, you haven’t elicited enough details to generate the effect. Jane also does something else that makes her strategy work. Once you discover the additional components and add them to your model, you will be able to get at least some of Jane’s happy state.

Even if you have no formal training in NLP modeling, you can start modeling now. Simply use your elicitation skills to figure out how someone does something, then test to discover whether you can duplicate what your subject does or experiences. Begin with skills and states that won’t require knowledge you lack, or lots of practice.

Once you can do the skill or get the state, teach it to someone else. If they can do the skill or get the state, you have a viable model… without formal training in NLP modeling!

Joy

What is NLP?

When most people talk about NLP, they mean:

1. NLP techniques, such as anchoring, pacing and leading, and the Fast Phobia Cure;
2. NLP applications, such as applying rapport skills to sales; and/or
3. NLP models, such as timelines and eye access cues.

However, I and most NLP developers regard another aspect of NLP as more important:

1. NLP modeling, NLP’s process for figuring out the specifics of how someone does a skill in enough detail that other people can achieve similar results.

What makes modeling important?

Modeling has been called “the core skill of NLP,” and I agree. Why?

• Modeling created NLP’s other techniques, models, and applications. Even models and techniques that originally came from other disciplines were developed, tested, and refined by modeling.
• If you knew how to model, and nothing else, you could create the rest of NLP. Which is exactly how John Grinder and Richard Bandler originated NLP in the first place!
• Modeling is one of the key factors that distinguishes NLP from other fields. (I’ll discuss others in a later post.)

In a sense, NLP is modeling. The rest of what people label “NLP” is simply is simply the “trail of techniques” created by applying the core NLP skill.

Yet as I write this in 2009, most NLP trainings focus far more on techniques, applications, and content than on modeling skills. That puzzles me.

What can you do with modeling?

Many NLP students only learn NLP models, applications, and techniques. What can they do when techniques fail? Not much, probably.

Once you know modeling, you can invent techniques that do what you want! You can figure out why a technique fails with a particular client, then figure out what will work for that person and do it.

You can also model the skills of people you encounter, learn those skills for yourself, and teach them to others.

And NLP modeling is fun! Every time I run a modeling group, people love modeling and want to do more.

That’s because modeling is a great way to explore how your mind works. Your mind does thousands of amazing things you usually take for granted. With NLP modeling, you can begin to discover how you do them.

Because people currently understand so little about the human mind, and NLP only began in the early 1980s, it’s easy to model something new — something that no one has ever modeled before. It’s an amazing feeling when you know you’re on the cutting edge of human knowledge.

Finally, modeling is the best way I know of to learn NLP, and to improve your NLP skills.

Joy

###

Related: NLP blogger Steve Bauer writes about Modeling: The Core Discipline of NLP

What makes an expert?

To find good exemplars (examples of a skill or ability) to learn from, evaluate their results. Ask:

• How good are the person’s actual results? It doesn’t matter if Rowena thinks she is the world expert in good relationships; it matters whether she has good relationships. Judge only by results, not by what you, she, or other people think will work, does work, or should work.
• Does this exemplar get consistently great results? Someone who has excellent relationship skills will tend to have lots of good relationships: with their spouse, parents, children, friends, neighbors, etc. They’ll also have minimal problems with bad relationships, quarrels, firings, and people doing nasty things to them.
• Do the good results last? Millions of people with excellent strategies for shedding excess weight lack strategies to stay slender. Some people’s relationship skills work well for short-term acquaintances, but prevent deeper long-term relationships.
• Does this exemplar deal skillfully with problems? Some people can accomplish anything in favorable circumstances, but fall apart when things get rough. Pick an exemplar who can deal with problems, but doesn’t generate them.
• Does this exemplar skillfully avoid, defuse, or prevent problems? People who are great at fixing problems often have excellent strategies for generating problems to fix! People whose strategies work best may seem like they do almost nothing, because most issues get handled before they turn into problems.
• How well does this exemplar match you? Find someone whose skill matches your learning and thinking styles, your meta-programs — and if applicable, your values. If you have to turn into someone else to learn a skill, or adopt a learning method that works poorly for you, find another exemplar.
• Can I learn from multiple exemplars? NLP modelers consistently find that even excellent exemplars usually use half or less of the possible skills for getting a great result. By modeling 2 or 3 people, you will gain a much broader range of strategies that work. Once you have finished, repay each exemplar by teaching them the additional skills they don’t have.

Joy

NLP modeling is a methodology for turning a skill that one person can do into a “recipe” that other people can follow to achieve similar results.

For instance, Richard Bandler famously developed the NLP Fast Phobia Cure by modeling people who used to have phobias, but had gotten over them. Many of NLP’s therapeutic techniques were modeled from successful therapists — most famously Fritz Perls, Virginia Satir, and Milton Erickson.

An NLP “recipe” for a skill is called a model.

NLP models subconscious processes

NLP models include aspects of the skill that the exemplar (the person being modeled) doesn’t know they do.

If you ask someone who used to have a phobia how they got rid of it, they probably can’t tell you enough about what they did that you can do it. That’s because a lot of what makes a skill work happens outside conscious awareness. The former phobic might be able to tell you what to do (“Detach yourself from those negative feelings…”), but they probably can’t tell you exactly how to do it.

Most people don’t consciously know about important aspects of skills they have. This makes skills difficult to teach and learn using conventional methods.

Spelling, for instance. As you probably know, good spellers all over the world use the same strategy: remembering a visual image of the word, and then verifying whether or not it looks correct with a feeling. People who spell poorly use a variety of other strategies, including auditory, kinesthetic, and visual constructed.

Prior to NLP, good spellers could teach other people how to spell. But because good spellers didn’t know how they spelled well, they couldn’t teach their students how to make useful internal representations of correctly spelled words. Students who happened to represent words using remembered visuals learned to spell well. Students like me, who used other strategies, spelled poorly no matter how smart we were and how hard we tried.

The NLP Spelling Strategy teaches students how to spell well, using remembered visuals and connecting them with feelings. When students learn spelling using a successful “recipe,” they all learn to spell well.

In this example, spelling was hard to teach because the most important aspects of the skill happened outside people’s conscious awareness. I often find this to be the case.

Someone who falls asleep quickly and easily, and sleeps well all night, has a great skill that millions insomniacs would love to learn. But since most of the important parts of the skill happen subconsciously, the sleep genius can’t teach her insomniac friends how to snooze better. However, you can model her skill and then teach it to others.

Some skills require knowledge and practice

An NLP model supplies the structure a person uses to do a skill. In some cases, NLP models also supply some content. For example, David Gordon’s Experiential Dynamics modeling method specifies the beliefs necessary to make an exemplar’s model function.

However, many skills depend heavily on content — particularly knowledge and practice.

Imagine that you model a great musician. Your model won’t include the musician’s extensive knowledge of melody, rhythm, sight-reading, or improvisation. Or their thousands of hours of practicing and playing.

Without including knowledge and practice, what is your model good for?

A model can help you learn the skill of playing music. If you think like a great musician, act like a great musician, and pay attention to what great musicians pay attention to, you will probably learn to play your instrument quickly, easily, and effectively… the way great musicians do. (You’ll also love to play and practice, a crucial skill for becoming great.)

Your model can also help you improve skills you already have. The more musical experience you have, the more content you have available to help you flesh out the model. An experienced musician with the necessary knowledge and technical skills might find your model provides all they need to quickly go from good to great.

However, your model can’t turn a person with no knowledge and experience into an instant expert. Just as spelling depends on making the right kind of visual remembered representations, and linking them with feelings, playing great music depends on having physical playing skills and understanding music the way musicians do. Someone who wants to learn to play great music needs to start by learning to play. And then practicing. And playing. A lot.

When I learned the NLP spelling strategy, my memory held literally thousands of visual images of words I had misspelled over more than 30 years. Purging the misspelled words from my memory took several months of looking up words and memorizing their correct spelling. Happily, over those few months I went from spelling poorly to spelling consistently well. I would not have gotten that result without adding the content necessary to make the strategy’s successful structure work.

So how can NLP eliminate a phobia in a few minutes? Models like the Fast Phobia Cure depend on knowledge and experience the person already has, so they work instantly.

NLP has done tremendous good in the world by transforming skills that people used to find difficult to teach or learn into skills that any of us can learn. What skills do you have that others would love to learn?

.

In a future post, I’ll tackle the controversial topic of what kinds of modeling constitute NLP modeling.

###

Science news about perception:

• Body posture affects confidence in your own thoughts
• Why cosmetics work: facial differences between men and women

Unresourcefulness, for example. It’s not surprising that people can get unresourceful when they have no clue how to do something, or have failed in the past. Especially if the task or project is important, or has large consequences.

It is surprising that people get unresourceful about skills they know they can do, and have done successfully many times before.

Part-time skill?

Perhaps you know someone like Mario. When he’s feeling confident, Mario easily approaches and talks with strangers at parties. But when he feels unresourceful, Mario can’t make himself approach anyone. Moreover, he’s convinced that even if he tries, he will fail — despite the evidence of his many past successes.

When Mario is resourceful, he is equally convinced that he does have the ability to approach strangers successfully. Numerous past experiences when he couldn’t approach strangers don’t make him doubt or question his ability.

How can Mario’s brain “know” that he can successfully approach people, and also know that he can’t successfully approach people, when it has plenty of examples of both?

This intriguing question got posed by my research buddy Jan (pronounced “yon”) Saeger. It took us down a bunch of dead ends before we finally figured out how people create unresourcefulness and resourcefulness. The answer revealed some very interesting things about how people think.

Unpacking contextual resourcefulness

Rather than simply reading through the rest of this article, I strongly recommend that you do the activities as you read. You will understand the material much better, discover fun things about how your brain works, and get practice doing NLP modeling. (Modeling is one of the best ways to improve your NLP skills.)

1. Find an example from your experience

To find out how contextual resourcefulness works, think of an example from your own experience. Pick an ability you have that:

• when you are resourceful, you do easily, and know you can do…
• …yet during times when you were unresourceful, it seemed like something you couldn’t do.

2. Set spatial anchors

Got an example? Great, now you’re ready to do some contrastive analysis.

The easiest way to contrast two states is often to use anchors. Anchors help you keep the states separate while you switch quickly from one state to another.

Set up 3 spatial anchors: resourceful, unresourceful, and a neutral observer meta-position. You will step from anchor to anchor, so arrange them in a triangle within a step or two of each other. (If you just started using spatial anchors, do yourself a favor and use labeled sticky notes to mark the anchor positions.) Put your Observer anchor close enough to your computer monitor that you can read these instructions.

When you create your anchors, establish Resourceful and Unresourceful in relation to your ability. A person can lack the resources to do one ability (such as driving) while simultaneously having abundant resources for another ability (such as falling asleep).

Also, test to make sure your anchors trigger associated experiences of feeling unresourceful and resourceful.

Now grab a pad so you can take notes. Notes help you track details accurately, so you can focus on what you’re exploring. (Notes will also help when you post your results in the Comments section below.)

3. Check evidence for your ability

Start on your neutral Observer anchor, then step onto your Resourceful anchor. Think of 3 incidents you use of evidence that you have your ability and can use it successfully. Now check your timeline. In your resourceful state, how do you represent those success experiences? What are the submodalities of your representations? Where are they located? How are they positioned in relation to your timeline? How real do they seem?

After you’ve established that, step back onto your Observer anchor as a break state.

Next, step onto your Unresourceful anchor. Once you’re in your unresourceful state, check your timeline for your success experiences. How are they represented? Where are they positioned in relation to your timeline? What are their submodalities? How real do they seem?

If necessary, step back and forth from Unresourceful to Resourceful several times to compare and contrast how you represent your success incidents in each state. Interesting, isn’t it?

Finish by stepping onto your Observer anchor, and writing down your results before you continue to the next step.

4. Check evidence for lack of ability

Next, standing on the Unresourceful anchor, choose 3 incidents you use as evidence that you don’t have the ability or can’t use it successfully. Now check your timeline. In your unresourceful state, how do you represent these experiences? What are the submodalities? How are these experiences positioned in relation to your timeline? How real do they seem?

Once you’ve established that, step back to your Observer anchor as a break state.

Now step onto your Resourceful anchor. In your resourceful state, check your timeline for the 3 incidents that indicate your lack of ability. How do you represent them? How are they positioned in relation to your timeline? What are their submodalities? How real do they seem?

If necessary, step back and forth from Unresourceful to Resourceful to compare and contrast your representations in each state.

Finish by stepping onto your Observer anchor… and writing down your results before you continue.

5. Check your resources

Step onto your Resourceful anchor. Pick 2 resources that your ability relies on. How and where do you represent them? What are their submodalities?

Now step onto your Unresourceful anchor. How and where do you represent those resources? What are their submodalities? Step back to Resourceful to compare… then to Observer when you finish… and write down your results.

State-dependent timelines

Jan and I consistently found that people’s timelines change depending on how resourceful or unresourceful they feel.

(How resourceful a person feels may have little or nothing to do with how resourceful they actually are. An unresourceful person who tries an activity they think they can’t do often discovers they can. It may even prove easy!)

Both resourcefulness and unresourcefulness seem real because these states delete or minimize counter-examples.

How people feel resourceful

1. Examples of success and resourceful behavior are represented as real and on the timeline.
2. Examples of failure and unresourceful behavior are missing, off the timeline, grayed out, or unreal.
3. Resources have submodalities of reality, and are positioned within reach.

In most circumstances, confidence and focus help you perform skills. Deleting examples of failure from your resource state, or making them seem unreal, makes it more likely that you will feel confident and perform effectively. You are less likely to get distracted by doubts, or by wondering whether or not they will succeed. And when you expect to succeed, you probably also expect to do the actions that helped you succeed in the past. These actions contribute to your success.

However, deleting or minimizing counter-examples can also make a person overconfident. It can stop them from taking preventive measures to avoid problems they encountered before. And any problem that disappears or becomes unreal while they are resourceful won’t get worked on in their resourceful state.

How people feel unresourceful

1. Examples of failure and unresourceful behavior are represented as real and on the timeline.
2. Examples of success and resourceful behavior are missing, off the timeline, grayed out, or unreal.
3. Resources have submodalities of unreality, and are positioned out of reach.

If your resource experiences were present, real, and within reach at all times, you probably couldn’t maintain an unresourceful state. The incongruity between your unresourceful feelings and beliefs, and your real resources and success experiences, would just seem too ridiculous. I suspect that integrating resourceful and unresourceful anchors works partly for this reason.

Sometimes feeling and acting unresourceful can have good payoffs. By feeling unresourceful about approaching strangers at parties, Mario avoids risk and rejection. The more unresourceful he feels, the more valuable avoiding risk seems.

Yet when he feels resourceful, Mario enjoys risks. And he doesn’t mind rejection, because it helps him focus on people who want to interact with him. The payoff of unresourceful behavior is only a payoff from within the unresourceful context. However, even that limited payoff is enough to keep the behavior active.

For Mario’s friend Veronica, unresourcefulness provides a way to get others to take care of her. It also keeps her from taking actions that might have significant negative consequences. And since Veronica has trouble saying no to requests, she can avoid unwanted activities by getting too unresourceful to do them. Any intervention to deal with her unresourcefulness will need to find her better ways to get these benefits.

Some people only have realistic representations of their problems when they feel unresourceful. I used to do that. When I was most resourceful, I didn’t work on my problems because they didn’t seem significant. When they seemed real and significant, I lacked the resources to deal with them effectively. However, having any realistic representation of my problems was much more useful than not having a representation. Unresourcefulness thus provided much-needed resources that I eventually figured out how to utilize.

Implications of contextual timelines

A lot of NLP is about literally getting resources into contexts where the client didn’t have them before. Once you know about resourceful and unresourceful timelines, you can check how clients represent resources when they are in state.

When a client is having trouble accessing a resource, it may be literally out of reach, unreal, or (especially in extreme states) deleted. Spatial anchors and meta-position can help such clients work on an unresourceful state from outside the state, where they have the needed resources to do the work. (I think a lot of NLP meta-position techniques are so effective because they bypass contextualized resource-inactivation.)

You can also have a client copy resources from a resourceful state to add to their unresourceful state. I use duplication to avoid having the client think, even subconsciously, that they might have removed the resource from its original state in order to add it to their unresourceful state.

Resourceful and unresourceful timelines are just one example of how the brain uses contextualized timelines to categorize experiences and build robust states and abilities. I’ll dig deeper into this fascinating subject in future posts.

• If they are in time, with their timeline running through their body (or they stand inside a “time tube”), they are probably good at being present in the moment. However, they may stay so in the moment that they have trouble keeping appointments or planning ahead.
• If they observe time, standing outside the “now” so they have perspective and can see the future from now, they can probably remember appointments and plan ahead. However, they might find it difficult to enjoy the moment because they always see, hear, and think about their future and/or past.

Each option has useful elements, and it would be nice to have them all, rather than having to pick one or the other. That’s why I developed the following technique.

Creating a both/and “now”

My frame for doing timeline tune-ups is that the client and I are going to provide their brain with a bunch of options for how to work their timeline. Their brain will then automatically choose those options that work best for them.

After eliciting their timeline and determining whether they are in time or observe time, I have them try the other version.

I then have them compare the two, pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Next I suggest that it would be useful to have both options. I have them double their timeline at “now.” The “in time” section goes through their body; the “observe time” section goes in front of them where they can see it. Visually, it’s rather like a river splitting to go around an island.

Once they have both options, I instruct them to vary how much of the timeline goes through each pathway. If they want to be present in the moment, they can have most of their timeline go through their body. I suggest they keep only enough observe time to remind them of upcoming events, and to make sure their current behavior supports their future plans and goals. If they want to plan ahead, they can have most of their timeline in observe time, with just enough in time that they can be present when that’s appropriate.

Now I talk them through practicing and future-pacing various examples. If they are relaxing on the beach or hanging out with their children, they might want 99% of their timeline to be in time. They can retain just enough observe time to remind them of an appointment later. If they need to do planning at work, they might want 95% of their timeline to be observe time. They can stay just enough in time to respond appropriately when a colleague or customer needs to connect with them. At a business dinner they might want to be 50% observe time, so they can plan ahead and notice the future implications of their current actions and decisions, and 50% in time so they can enjoy the food and conversation, and bond with their colleagues.

I have them pick several examples in the near future where each option might be useful. In each, I have them practice adjusting how much of their timeline is in time and observe time. Finally I suggest that from now on, their mind will automatically adjust their timeline to make it appropriate to what they’re doing.

So far, every person I have done this with chose to keep their adjustable in time/observe time “now.” Including me! It is delightful to be able to be thoroughly in the moment, knowing that at the appropriate time, I’ll remember other tasks and appointments. It’s also nice to go deep into abstract thinking mode, and still notice and appreciate delicious food, beautiful sunsets, and great people.

So much of NLP is about adding choices. Adding both/and options to what many people assume are digital either/or choices can do a lot to improve quality of life — for both you and your clients.

Want to experiment?

This is an NLP development blog, and you can participate by testing NLP patterns and suggestion improvements. Try today’s intervention on yourself or a client, and report the results in the Comments section below. Thanks for participating!