Ways of Modelling Tango
As the stream of videos is becoming overwhelming, a new orientation
in the way of looking at visual information is inevitable:
TangoClass - instructional vídeos - TangoLessons
Milonga and Candombe dancing
Tangovals clips - Tango waltzing - Valse - Tangowals
4. TangodanceClips with Humor
Steve Andreas on Modelling with NLP :
A model has three levels:
1. Epistemology, a set of methods for discovering and testing understandings.
2. Methodology, a description of the understanding itself.
3. Technology, specific applications of the methodology to accomplish
a particular outcome in a particular context.
The more general a model is, the more it can be applied to a wide
range of situations. However, the more general it is, the
less information it supplies about specific situations. E=mc2
is understood to apply to the entire universe, but it doesn't tell
you how to make a match or how to build a pump. More limited
and specific models can provide more detailed information.
One important element is to know the scope of the domain described
by a model. For example, NLP is a wonderful model, but it
is not useful in designing an automobile engine.
A new model is created when one realm of experience (e.g. "particle")
is used to describe another (e.g. electron) metaphorically, and
then further developed through testing, descriptions of how to apply
and refine this metaphor through mathematics, etc. The initial
creative leap is followed by a lot of work to develop the detailed
A. How to Start
There isn't "a" way to model something.
A modelling process has been successful when you have a description
that enables you to:
1. Gain the skill, or transform the limitation modelled, and
2. Teach someone else to gain the same benefits.
An even better test of your modelling is when you can teach
someone else your model and they can teach someone else to gain
the same benefits.
When you can do this, you have succeeded, and how you get
there is not important.
B. What to Model
The first step is to define the skill, ability or limitation
that you want to model, and the context in which it occurs.
Chunking this down to a reasonable size is very important,
particularly when you have limited time. Even when you have
more time it is usually much more useful to chunk down to components,
model each one separately, and then integrate these components into
a larger model. One important distinction is between modelling
a process that is mostly internal, such as shame or feeling bad
about being criticized, in contrast to processes that are interactional,
such as negotiation. Negotiation is inherently more complex,
because you have two individual worlds and their interaction to
deal with. It can be useful to chunk down to a particular
kind of interaction, or even to one person's process/response to
the particular interaction. A precise model of a small process
is generally much more useful than an imprecise model of a larger
process -and you can build a precise model of a larger process by
modelling small pieces of it and then integrating them.
There are many possibilities for how to choose a starting
Following are a few of the possibilities that have been useful:
1. Think of a particular difficulty and its
resolution (for which there is not yet an NLP pattern). Usually
these will be nominalizations ("difficulty," "resolution"), and
your modelling task will be to denominalize it into the processing
that the person goes through. If you model a nominalized experience,
it will typically be at a sufficiently general level that your model
will be applicable to a wider range of people than if you model
a simpler and more specific skill. However, as the level of
generalization increases, so does the complexity of the process
you will need to model.
You can model the problem and its resolution separately -or
alternately for contrast -and then model a process that will make
the transition from one to the other (more on this later).
This is how Connirae and I modelled the Criticism, Grief, Guilt,
Shame, and Forgiveness patterns.
Remember that your model can only be as good as the experiences
that you choose to model. When modelling grief, for example,
we passed over people who said (often with a sigh, and shallow breathing)
that they now felt "OK" about the lost person. Instead we
chose people who felt (and behaved) joyously when thinking of the
lost person. If we had modelled the former, we would have
modelled a less-than-optimum solution. However, for practice
in learning how to model, modelling a less-than-supreme example
can be just as useful.
2. Think of a particular skill that you,
or your clients, want, or need. Find a particularly good example
of someone who has that skill behaviorally, and model what they
In selecting a model, be cautious about people's self-reports.
For example, some people say they are good at motivating themselves
because they are so aware of the half-hour process they use to get
out of bed! Others will say they are not good at motivating
themselves because they can't continue to motivate themselves at
the end of a highly-active 18-hour day! Find someone who exhibits
or can demonstrate to you the skill or quality that you want to
model. It may be difficult to find an exquisite model of a
particular skill in the limited context of the Summer Residential.
3. Explore the structure of anything.
This is how Connirae and I modelled how people represent time and
values, and how I modelled the structure of self-concept.
This is potentially much more generative, but it may also be more
complex, and the applications, uses and benefits are not usually
clear in advance. Think about problems or limitations for
which there are no dependable NLP patterns.
4. Look and listen around you for someone
who is noticeably good at something or consistently exhibits a pleasant
or useful attitude and model that. This may be a particularly
useful option at the Summer Residential. Although consistent
attitudes typically generalize widely, they can be fairly simple
in structure/process. There are plenty of attitudes the world
could use more of (gratitude, appreciation, friendliness, tolerance,
love, respect, connection, equality) and plenty of attitudes the
world could use less of (scorn, hatred, meanness, superiority, inferiority,
coercion/manipulation, imposition, distance, grouchiness, etc.).
You can think of people in your life whose attitude you particularly
like or disliked, and model that.
5. Notice the universal form to an individual
solution: When a client presents you with a difficulty and
you find a solution process that works for them, chunk up to a more
generalized form, and apply the solution to others. This is
how Connirae modelled a number of processes: Self-healing,
Core Transformation, Parental Timeline Reimprinting, Timeline Recoding
Process, and Naturally Slender Eating.
6. Model a change that someone made spontaneously.
Find out the characteristics of before and after, and how the transition
was made. I have rediscovered the Swish Pattern, Content Reframing
and Change History a number of times doing this. If nothing
else, it's a wonderful way to gain experience and flex your modelling
7. Model a skill of your own that other people
have commented on, but you don't know clearly how you do.
Ask someone who doesn't have this skill, and wants it, to gather
information about it as their project. Since it is so natural
to you there will be many aspects that will be totally unconscious
and presupposed, and only someone else asking questions from a perspective
of not being able to do it will tease them out and make them obvious.
C. How to Proceed
Some kind of contrast will be extremely useful in helping
you zero in on the crucial distinctions operating. Whenever
possible make everything the same except the presence or absence
of what you are modelling.
a. You can compare the "same" person before and after they
made a change--whether spontaneous or deliberate.
b. You can compare two recent experiences in the same person
when they did or didn't have the skill or quality you are modelling.
c. You can compare two people, one of whom has it and the
2. Selecting a counterexample.
If you are modelling a problem state, for example, you don't
want to select any counterexample. You need a counterexample
that has all the features described for the problem state except
that the person's response is useful and life-affirming. This
will be an immense help in disregarding all the elements in the
two experiences that are the same, and irrelevant to success/failure.
However, later you may need to go back and identify other
supporting elements that are necessary but not sufficient, and since
they were present in both experiences you disregarded them.
3. Characterizing the Experience and its
What are the essential features of the states you are modeling?
What overall strategy sequence does the person go through?
Then chunk down to the smaller steps, and characterize them using
any and all NLP distinctions and methodologies you are familiar
with. As you go through the Residential you will be learning
more distinctions and methodology to apply. Among the ones
that are usually useful are:
T.O.T.E. (Test, Operate, Test, Exit), or
G.E.O. (Goal, Evidence, Operation)
Attentional Shifts: Self/Other Content/Context
4. Content: Knowledge/Skills
Most of the distinctions above are pure process differences
and do not contain specific content. However, most real-world
skills require knowledge of content. A geologist needs to
know about rocks, chemistry, physics, etc., and a negotiator may
need to know about corporate structure, contracts, interest rates,
time to develop a product, etc. These content-area skills
are essential for the good judgement required in carrying out the
process distinctions in your modelling. These are easily overlooked
in the focus on process, and need to be included as a part of your
modelling. For instance, an editor needs to know the letters
of the alphabet, and how to read and speak the language involved.
Even if it seems obvious, include required content areas in your
5. Designing a Transition
When you have characterized the differences between the problem
state and the desired state, this will usually suggest how to get
from the problem state to the desired state. How can you design
a sequence of changes to make the transition smooth, efficient,
and effective? A given set of changes may be very difficult
when made in one sequence, and very easy when done in a different
order. If there are a number of shifts to be made, decide
which will probably be easier or more comfortable to make first,
and then experiment to find out the best sequence of these shifts.
(It can be very helpful to model someone who went through this transition
successfully, and identify his/her sequence.)
At this point you should have an outline of a model of how
to achieve the desired outcome. It is probably missing some
distinctions and there will be certain contexts where it won't work,
but it will work in at least some cases.
6. Testing and Refining Your Model
Some refining can be done conceptually, but trying out the
model with yourself and others is the best way to learn how it can
be improved. By comparing additional examples with your model
outline you can discover additional useful features.
a. Congruency. Try out your model with yourself.
What problems could occur? How can you modify it so these
problems are excluded? Are all the positive functions of the
problem state preserved? For example, if someone feels comfortable
while public speaking by negatively hallucinating the audience,
this will interfere with a lively, connected presentation.
An alternative way of feeling comfortable will be more useful.
Are there any supporting elements or processes that you can add
that would make this process even more positive and beneficial to
b. Streamlining. The process you modeled from the counterexample
or exceptional model may have steps or aspects that are redundant
or superfluous. Is there anything you can leave out, yet still
get the desired results? Perhaps someone repeats a question
inside, and this only delays the response and is not necessary for
c. Amplifying. How can you add to the process to make
it more robust and enduring? This is best discovered by noticing
exactly where the process fails with specific clients, and what
you have to add to make it work. By building this into the
process you can extend the range of successful applications.
For instance, the phobia cure will not work well with some people
because of perceptual position misalignment. Adding this in
makes the phobia cure work successfully with a much wider range
of people. Sometimes the process can be amplified by changing
the sequence, or by speeding up the sequence.
At this point it can be extremely useful to compare
your model of an exceptional skill with:
1. Someone who is only moderately
skilled, to gain more understanding of the relative contribution
of individual components to the overall ability, and to highlight
aspects that may not have been obvious in your previous comparison.
2. Someone else who is also exceptionally
skilled, to learn different ways to do a particular component of
a process, and/or to learn additional supporting elements that your
first model never learned -and that you can teach them to improve
their performance even more. (This potential improvement can
be a useful incentive to offer a highly-skilled person to get them
to participate in your modelling project. Another incentive
is that when you are successful, they will have an explicit model
that they can teach to clients or associates, to their benefit.)
d. Special cases. Some clients will need more than
a small adjustment to deal with objections, concerns, problems,
or unique aspects. Often you can simply add a "standard" step
that checks for ecology or reframes common objections, so that the
model can be successfully applied to a wider range of clients without
Source NLP Comprehensive.
See also links Intro-page Provocative Tango.