Modelling Wanting

[phil]

In the post Motivations, Outcomes and Desires, I say:

I think we can translate "one clear, recognized motivation" into "desired outcome" and the Developing and Intention Questions are useful for directing attention to that.

Considering it further, I think that it's not a complete translation at all. Feldenkrais' "one clear, recognized motivation" is more related to 'desired' than to 'outcome'.

Pondering this made me examine the phrase 'desired outcome' more closely. In Symbolic Modelling (and NLP) we associate the motivation/desire with the outcome and treat the two parts as one by referring to a 'desired outcome'. We can see both parts in the Intention question 'And what would you like to have happen?' (WWYLTHH?).

However, WWYLTHH? directs attention more towards the outcome ('what') than the desire ('would you like'). By asking the question, we take the desire for granted, operating on the assumption that the person knows what they want and that defining the outcome (the 'what') will enable them to move towards getting it. This works pretty well if they do know what they want.

As we all know, this isn't always what happens when someone is asked WWYLTHH? Leaving aside the tendency of some people to focus on problems rather than outcomes, some common responses are:

'I want something but I don't know what'
'I'm not sure, I don't really know'
'I want to eat rich, fatty foods even though I know they're bad for me'

Answers like that make me as a facilitator inclined to ask about the person's wanting because if the outcome part is not clear or unequivocal, I am curious about the desire part since the two are so closely related.

Being a highly sensory and not very conceptual experience, 'wanting' lends itself well to exploration using Symbolic Modelling, using the normal Developing questions to get a metaphor.

Asking about wants requires a careful approach, however. Exploring aspects of people's experience that they are not normally aware of can be an uncomfortable and scary experience for them. They may be defensive and it is easy to come across as challenging the quality of their wanting, which is not a wise move.

Great patience may be needed and great flexibility too. If you've ever asked a question like 'and when you want [X], what kind of want is that?', did you experience the same blank stare that I did when I tried it first?

That said, when you are trying to help a person to develop a desired outcome and it is proving difficult for them to get clear about what they want, consider making a sensitive Clean Language or Clean Space exploration of the nature and characteristics of their wanting.

Since wanting is primarily a sensory experience, a good place to start could be to find its Location. Then after developing a metaphor for the wanting, perhaps a Source question might give more information about motivation. I would be very interested to hear what others have found to be the best way to model wanting and motivation.

Occasionally people discover surprising things about their motivations. They may realise that they no longer really want what they have been saying they want (i.e. they've been saying they want something out of habit). Or perhaps they have been operating out of a want belonging to someone else (e.g. an over-controlling parent).

Of course that's for them to find out and not for us to presume.

Any comments?

Phil Swallow

[Lynn Bullock]

I'm not so sure how or where to start...

In the post Motivations, Outcomes and Desires Phil, you talk about Feldenkrais' " clear, recognised motivation" and "compare" or "translate" that into the "desired outcome" of Symbollic Modelling.

Within a Feldenkrais lesson, there is always a notion of function which will be the thread of the lesson throughout... a kind of framework within which the explorations of oneself in movement take place.

The student rarely knows what the function is at the beginning of the lesson (but the teacher does) as in a Feldenkrais lesson one is more attached to the "how" rather that the "wanting" something or "getting" somewhere. The journey is alot more important than the destination.... and the fact of being able to forget or at least become non attached to that destination modifies and facilitates the way there, helping eliminate unneccessary effort or work, due to habitual patterns of the nervous system...students become aware of what they actually do and can then do or not do it with awareness and hence open up their choice of movement... so moving towards an (unknown to them) function, or intention.

There is also a "test movement" in most Feldenkrais lessons that students can refer to and become aware of any sensoriel changes or changes of perception of themselves in action.

As a beginner in the learning of Clean Language and Symbollic modelling, I turn things the other way round, as it is. The way I see it is that the "desired outcome" sets a frame within which the journey can take place, and the question "what would you like to have happen" (WWYLTHH) seems significant to me in the "would like" because it ( in my mind) doesn't impose an absolute succeeding of the "what", which seems to me the opener to the notion of exploring the way things are without having a judgement, etc on them.

So as I see it maybe the "desired outcome" set by the WWYLTHH question can translate into the notion of "function" in a Feldenkrais lesson???

Please Phil... or anyone else interested... don't hesitate to ask me questions on all this, as I feel very intuitively all the connections between Feldenkraïs and Symbollic Modelling, but getting it all in words is a different story ...! So obviously, any help is welcome.

I'm sure that I have many more reflections to share ...

Lynn

[phil]

Thanks Lynn for a stimulating response.

When I came across Clean Language I remember having a conversation with James Lawley about function. I used it in what I think is a fairly popular way as in 'what's its function?' meaning 'what's it for?' James pointed out that [these are my words] function was about what something does as well than what it's for.

I have just looked up function to see if I could clarify the meaning.

function // n. & v.
n.
1 a an activity proper to a person or institution. b a mode of action or activity by which a thing fulfils its purpose. c an official or professional duty; an employment, profession, or calling.

According to the definition I highlighted, intention and action are very much intertwined, a relationship represented by the word 'function' (for some reason this reminds me of direction and movement (or magnitude) being represented by the word 'vector').

So can movement be called a journey if it does not have a purpose? I really like your description: "The way I see it is that the "desired outcome" sets a frame within which the journey can take place,"

The purpose (desired outcome) provides an impetus, a trigger, an irritant, the grain of sand that stimulates the oyster to produce a pearl. Once action has been stimulated, the action will not necessarily lead directly towards the original purpose. The emergent properties of journeying include unexpected twists and turns allong the way

More anon

Phil

[Lynn Bullock]

here are a few quick thoughts about your last post :


So can movement be called a journey if it does not have a purpose? I really like your description:

The purpose (desired outcome) provides an impetus, a trigger, an irritant, the grain of sand that stimulates the oyster to produce a pearl. Once action has been stimulated, the action will not necessarily lead directly towards the original purpose. The emergent properties of journeying include unexpected twists and turns allong the way
Phil

... and when we take time to notice and explore what is actually happening in the here and now... in the twists and turns, once the direction or the "frame" is present but less important ... in movement I often say that the outcome is a direction and not necessarily a destination, which allows that freedom to really explore and it seems that when we can really detach from the desired outcome then surprisingly it becomes possible to be at or sometimes even the other side of the desired outcome ( or further than one would have hoped to be)

It also seems that during the journey, be it in Feldenkrais lessons or in Symbollic modelling, then as one takes time to notice the events or "twists and turns" on the way, then there appears kind of "sub- desired outcomes" or frames within a larger framework, so delving into more intricate parts of one self's image and way of functioning... this exploration of details maybe contributing to a "better" functioning of the whole self with its desired outcome .... ???

I don't know they're ideas
Let me know what you think ?

Lynn

[BobGorman]

Phil & Lynn,
This discussion has intriqued me, and I started to think of a reply back in May when it started. It's a topic I've struggled with both personally and with many clients, in many contexts, for many years. Here's my current thoughts and opinions, and that's all they are is my opinions. They are intended not to resolve, but to provote thought.

Having studied NLP, Clean Language, Symbolic Modelling, DOBT, and over 100 other systems of psychology, this topic comes up continually. The distinction which I currently use and works out fairly well for me, is to distinguish between 2 types of goals. I call them Target goals, what you call Outcomes, i.e. measurable, reachable items, and Process goals, what you call Motivations, or perhaps Directions. The neuron people hint at right brained, process oriented, and left-brained or target orientedness. Of course they leave out both-brained, and unfortunately neither-brained. :-(

I, and most of my clients, have had both Target goals, Outcomes, even well-defined outcomes in the NLP sense, and also Process goals or Directions. Sometimes they alternate, and that is how I now see them, as alternating but both necessary.

I'll start with my own.
By about 6 years old, I was very upset with people, primarily my parents, and then the nuns in school. I knew I wanted somehow, some way, to make things better, at a time when I couldn't even define what 'better' was. It was a Direction, a very, very vague direction, like head west. In NLP terms this was extremely NOT well-formed. By 14, I knew I could not retain my sanity at home and decided that rather than simply run away and live on the streets, I joined a seminary, to see if becoming a priest would be appealing or at least acceptable to me. Perhaps, I was heading north-west, but with NO clearly measurable target goal. I had no idea whatsoever where it would all end. After 3 years of reflecting, I realized I wanted to re-join society and find better ways to help everyday people achieve happiness and personal fulfillment, so I majored in psychology at St. John's University. A narrowing of direction, but still NO clearly defined or measurable target goal. Academic psychology totally failed me, they couldn't even define what a totally healthy person would be like. No measurable target! So I married, had 5 kids, and now 4 grand-kids, and they are truly grand, and paid the rent by a wide variety of careers, keeping, to use gestalt terminology, working in the foreground, and psychology in the background. Three years ago, at 61, I swapped them, and now psychology is in the foreground, and paying the bills in the background.

Looking at the extremes, never a comfortable place to be, I saw that those who were Target oriented, could, at the extreme embrace the notion that the end justifies the means. Hitler was focused on a pure arian race, a measurable goal. But those devoted mostly to the journey, enjoyed the raptures of the journey but didn't often accomplish any measurable or even un-measurable goals. They were, perhaps happy, but the rest of the world did not benefit from their private bliss.

So I guess I see both as necessary, and complementary, but in different quantities, at different times, for different individuals. Without targets, measurable deadlines, we tend never to finish anything. (I started to respond to this thread when it started last May.) But also, a slavish over-dedication to a specific measurable goal prevents one from switching mid-stream to an even better goal. As Lynn said: "The emergent properties of journeying include unexpected twists and turns along the way". Now, from the clients I've worked with over the last 40 years, I noticed that each has a personal 'preference' for one or the other. A kind of natural in-born, or DNA, leaning, which is then strengthened or weakened during childhood.

Looking at the replies to this post, I see, or perhaps imagine:

Phil:
"However, WWYLTHH? directs attention more towards the outcome ('what') than the desire ('would you like')."
[A Target preference?]

Lynn:
"As a beginner in the learning of Clean Language and Symbolic modelling, I turn things the other way round, as it is. The way I see it is that the "desired outcome" sets a frame within which the journey can take place, and the question "what would you like to have happen" (WWYLTHH) seems significant to me in the "would like" because it ( in my mind) doesn't impose an absolute succeeding of the "what", which seems to me the opener to the notion of exploring the way things are without having a judgement, etc on them."
and
"in movement I often say that the outcome is a direction and not necessarily a destination"
[A process preference?]

So, as Lynn would say: "to provide an impetus, a trigger, an irritant, the grain of sand that stimulates the oyster to produce a pearl", I'd suggest this metaphor:
If facts and details and measurable goals is a man, and process, and direction and path, and relationships are a woman, then I see a dance, a wild Polka, where each whirls about the other, constantly, and rapidly changing the locus of control, and where the outcome is for us, and our children, and our grandchildren, and our ..... a Win!

Phil Swallow wrote:
What might we ask if someone conceives of a HERE and a DIRECTION but not a THERE? In other words, someone who doesn't have (and maybe even doesn't want) a goal in mind, a somewhere to arrive at, but does have a sense of which DIRECTION to head in?

Right now I'm reading "Resolving Traumatic Memories" and I'm totally enmeshed in it. I'm using my text analysis tools to detect his 4 languages, Memories, Symbols, Metaphors, and Semantics; and also using my KnCells to model his 'Matrix'. But what I see, from my space, is that David, like me, prefers process or doing, or exploring to finishing. His first book was the work of B. I. Panzer who modelled David and wrote it down and published it. Since then Penny and James modelled David and finalized it (Targets) as their book, "Metaphors in Mind", as well as many articles and workshops.

At the time of the first book, 1989, while David had defined Clean Language, I doubt he could have defined the measurable targets of Clean Space, Clean Worlds, and Emergent Knowledge. I suspect, and this is only my opinion that he was primarily driven by a direction - to help trauma victims.

Refining my own direction, I've studied for some 40 years now, individual differences, and it has become so central to my research that I created a new discipline I've called Individuology over the last 2 decades. But it's a direction. I play with, on good days; or toy with, on bad days, specific targets, like a software therapist/assistant to help people in remote areas obtain the therapeutic help they need to overcome their private traumas, and lead fulfilling lives that are both personally satisfying and contributing to the betterment of others.

Indeed, the only reason I'm posting this tonight, is that yesterday, I pushed, perhaps bullied, myself to post something, good, bad, or indifferent by tomorrow (now today). Well, it's 9:21 pm here in Nashua New Hampshire, USA, so I beat my deadline by 2 hours, and 39 minutes!

Bob

[Egg]

And what would you like to have happen?

I treat this as a symbol nothing more nothing less



An interesting point may be that the unconcscious will generate a symbolic statement as a response. To the effect of. And what would you not like to not have not happen?

[phil]

The response to 'AWWYLTHH?' will be representative of some sensory experience of the person answering, as, thinking about it, I suppose all language is, if one includes thinking/processing as sensory experience. So it will be symbolic at that level. Or did you mean something else? Can you write a little more about that?

Phil

[Egg]

Hi Phil,

Yes, language itself is symbolic.

The follow up would indicate that the unconscious component of the symbol would be manifest in the metaphoric landscape too. As being `opposite` as a counterbalance to the conscious `desire`.

This would raise the question of `ecology of desire`. The ecology is symbolic in itself and as a part of and contained within symbols. For the matter of conscious awareness there has to be `antimatter of unconscious in the psyche.

Very interesting subject. I am really expanding the idea already metnioned of how it is important to just follow the symbolism to where it takes us and therefore the `idea` or desire` is really irrelevant in itself.

[Radagast]

With reference to Phil's first post (http://www.cleanforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=177&postcount=1) in this thread:

Howzit Phil,

I attended an NLP practitioner's course, a year or so ago (they failed me because they claimed I was "seeking significance", whatever that means). During a one on one with one of the Trainers, I asked why "why" wasn't used. "We never ask that in NLP, because we can't control the response," I was told.

Now, I confess myself no expert in NLP, but I would have thought that not controlling the client would have been the point? Besides which, with respect to the WWYLTHH? question, "why?" would permit the client to establish precisely what they were seeking from their behaviour, and then possibly to seek a more empowering alternative. Ultimately, "control" seems like a futile exercize, when there appears to be a facility to take a shortcut, which has the potential to permit a client to achieve results that they can recognize all the faster.

Anyway, just a couple of thoughts. I'd be interested in your perspective.

Best regards


Radagast

[phil]

Radagast wrote:

During a one on one with one of the Trainers, I asked why "why" wasn't used. "We never ask that in NLP, because we can't control the response," I was told.

Now, I confess myself no expert in NLP, but I would have thought that not controlling the client would have been the point?


First I should point out that NLP and Clean Language/Symbolic Modelling/Clean Space are not the same thing. It might be said that they both spring from the same source: modelling. They have taken different paths though. Some NLPers have left modelling behind, picking up breadcrumbs along their 'trail of techniques'. Clean keeps coming back to modelling as the core skill and philosophy.

BTW If you still retain an interest in NLP, you might want to take a look at Steve Saunders' 4G NLP which I think he intends to be a new generation of NLP that has room for more emergence and modelling, though I have not experienced it directly. As I write, there's a notice of his in the Noticeboard on cleanforum.

I wonder what the trainer you quote meant by 'control'? S/he was not describing a Clean philosophy. NLP is generally not very clean at all and does not intend to be, seeking rather to effect change in the client, hopefully in line with the client's desired outcome.

Clean processes work by modelling the client and directing the client's attention such that they model themselves. Change in the system emerges mostly from that self-modelling by the client.

Of course no-one can pretend that they can work (or even be) with someone without affecting or 'controlling' them to some extent. The controlling that happens in Clean processes is about directing the attention of the subject to their own experience. What they do with that experience is up to them. The Clean-ness comes in being able to allow them to learn and come to their own conclusions without constraining them to respond in a particular way.

Perhaps someone else would like to respond to the question of 'why no why?'

[Martin Römer]

With reference to Phil's first post (http://www.cleanforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=177&postcount=1) in this thread:

I'd like to report that I as a client in a exercise environment (i.e. training or practice teleclass) often like to take an "exploration" point of view, thus sometimes "ignoring" the facilitator's opening question WWYLTHH and answering "I'd like to explore [X]" where X is some self-noticed pattern of mine. In some cases, it seems to be that I am really just curious, although sometimes there is also a protective motivation to it, that is that I want to avoid any (voicing of a) judgement (of myself), which to me can be implied in the context of answering WWYLTHH in a facilitation session.

Opening with "What would you like to explore ?" certainly also sets a frame for the session, but reduces the elements of outcome and desire. Although, to me, there still is an element of outcome in it, i.e. learn something new (outcome) and desire (flash of insight, change ?).

This to me shows how the overall context of a session (and how the client came (in)to it) also influences the effect (and the choice ?) of the opening question.

And with reference to Lynn Bullock's reply mentioning "would like", when translating "WWYLTHH" into German, we took great care to carry over in a balanced way all three elements we noticed in the question, i.e. "would like", "desired" and "outcome".

[Martin Römer]

I am also intrigued by the similarities between SyM and Feldenkrais, in my case I am beginner regarding Feldenkrais, and have only experienced a bit of "awareness through movement", nothing of "functional integration".

Just two things I wondered about (and am interested in opinions):

1. What is the correspondence of a Feldenkrais test movement in SyM ? Is Feldenkrais in that case less clean ? Actually, that is not what I think/feel, but the test movement seems to be something introduced by the teacher, like if the SyM facilitator would ask "What happens when you replace [client's symbol] by [facilitator's symbol suggestion] ?". Or is asking for a test movement comparable to the SyM question "When [X], what happens to [Y] ? And even if so, what about the other movements suggested by the teacher (in a awareness through movement session), that extend/change the client's moves ? Or does the fact(?), that we can do very arbitrary moves allow for more suggestions by the teacher than our entrenched mental patterns allow to the (SyM) facilitator ?

2. If it helps to do regular physical/Feldenkrais exercises to stay flexible, is there a pendant to that with mental exercises, which is more active than meditation ? How could SyM inform us here ? What could be the elements ? Exploring thresholds, scales, patterns, levels ? Or trying on patterns, metaphors, archetypes, etc. ? What else ?

[robert g]

Hi Martin,

Just a quick post in reply to your suggestion to alter the 'have happen" to "explore"

From the context of your message "my experience as an explorer" are you suggesting that other's sym mod processes would be enhanced or enriched through your metaphor?

Are you suggesting that is has benefited you and wonder what would happen if you used your personal metaphor of exploring as the beginning point of the clean language / sym mod process?

Objectively it ins't clean as you are setting up the filters and pressupositions as an exploration, explorer, etc.

Useful jargon to describe the process as it seems, however it does hide and presuppose other drawbacks.

What happens to explorers?

Frozen to death, eaten by cannibles, sinking ships, etc. as one example...finding new worlds, civilisations, being responsible for wiping out indigenous cultures...

If you decide to explore your 'metaphor landscape' (a fancy way of saying what you see hear & feel taste smell in your minds eyes) that's great,

And...allow others to describe their way of doing sym mod or CL...perhaps you can swap with them..they can explore for a while and you can embody their deep sea diving trek or whatever!

Rob G

[MichaelM]

I discourage the use of questions beginning with 'Why?'

Do I hear you ask, "Why?"

Firstly, because there is a likelihood of people perceiving criticism or attack, which will impact on their physiology and possibly their state. That alone might be reason enough to eliminate 'why' questions - or at least reduce them.

However, perhaps more importantly, they are, at best, ambiguous, probably rather lazy and neither clear nor, indeed, clean.

Not clean because of the presuppositions therein.

Ambiguous because it is not clear whether one is seeking information about the past or the present in relations to the event or behaviour being investigated.

Every present behaviour, including asking questions of course, has a past (cause, trigger, 'push' motivation) and a future (outcome / 'pull' motivation) .

Clean language questions, of course, invite the questionee to explore the past: "And...just before..." and the future: "And... what would like to have happen?"

If people know (or have metaphors for) what, anywhen from the immediate to the distant past, prompts behaviour, they might better understand old hurts or resources that could help them to do that behaviour less or more or better, as they might desire.

Our 'pull' future motivations will usually, consciously or not, be to achieve something, maybe maintainence, and/or to avoid something real or imagined.

If people know what they want to avoid, they can better understand the (hidden) fears and negative hallucinations.
If we know what we want to achieve, that might encourage motivation or ignite inspiration.

If, as a result of a question beginning with 'Why' the questionee closes down, much of the above might get locked out.

Go well

MichaelM
All above metaphors kindly donated by the NW London branch of Metaphors R Uz!

[Radagast]

"First I should point out that NLP and Clean Language/Symbolic Modelling/Clean
Space are not the same thing... It might be said that they both spring from the
same source: modelling. They have taken different paths though. Some NLPers
have left modelling behind, picking up breadcrumbs along their 'trail of
techniques'. Clean keeps coming back to modelling as the core skill and
philosophy.

BTW If you still retain an interest in NLP, you might want to take a look at
Steve Saunders' 4G NLP which I think he intends to be a new generation of NLP
that has room for more emergence and modelling, though I have not experienced it
directly. As I write, there's a notice of his in the Noticeboard on cleanforum.

I wonder what the trainer you quote meant by 'control'? S/he was not describing
a Clean philosophy. NLP is generally not very clean at all and does not intend
to be, seeking rather to effect change in the client, hopefully in line with the
client's desired outcome.

Clean processes work by modelling the client and directing the client's
attention such that they model themselves. Change in the system emerges mostly
from that self-modelling by the client.

Of course no-one can pretend that they can work (or even be) with someone
without affecting or 'controlling' them to some extent. The controlling that
happens in Clean processes is about directing the attention of the subject to
their own experience. What they do with that experience is up to them. The
Clean-ness comes in being able to allow them to learn and come to their own
conclusions without constraining them to respond in a particular way.

Perhaps someone else would like to respond to the question of 'why no why?'

Howzit,

I wasn't aware of the distinction, so that's quite interesting. The NLP course I attended made reference to the use of "clean language", however. Stressed it, in fact. And I agree with them, here: one can't communicate adequately with anyone, I think, unless one understands how people are defining the terms (words) that they use. Didn't Nietzche write an essay on this subject?

I don't have it to hand to check my facts, but I seem to remember that the gist was that things are only understood through our own experience (eg, we would all know what "chair" meant, given that there are certain properties of a chair that we all understand) and the nuances that people place on words may give different meanings to language, such that, taken to its logical extreme, two people may have a discussion and in effect be using two completely different languages, even if they were both speaking in "english", as each understood that term. The risk being that they actually believe that they have understood one another. This risk is manifested particularly clearly where people are discussing abstract ideas (eg, "mind", "thought", "ideas", etc). The risk, expressed in generic terms, appears to be that we assume that there is one "reality".

I do agree with your comments regarding "control", however, which is why I think "clean language" (as perceived by me) is so important. If we assume that there is one reality, or even that there is one reality that is correct, then there must also be a risk that we assume that anybody who does not comply with our reality is at fault, and to seek to impress that upon them, which I think feeds into Michael M's comments on this thread. If we adopt the position that we are right, and the client is wrong (we might convey this implicitly by adopting a superior attitude, even if we didn't express our opinion), then the client will become defensive, and depending upon the balance of power between practitioner and client, may be obliged to consider the possibility that they are wrong, but not now have the option of discussing this with the practitioner, for the simple reason that it makes them feel bad. It's their reality: suppose their right?

In response to MichaelM's comment: "However, perhaps more importantly, [why questions] are, at best, ambiguous, probably rather lazy and neither clear nor, indeed, clean," I would argue as I did with my Trainer: "doesn't that depend upon the quality of the next question?" If I asked the question "why does it benefit you to not consider the value of "why" questions?" or "why do you choose to not consider the possibility that "why" questions are valuable?" then I would argue that that would be extraordinarily specific.

Anyway, just a couple of ideas.

Best regards


Radagat