• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Yet more NLP BS

What do you mean with 'in yourself'? Can you give an example of a deletion "in yourself", Daylighstar. I don't understand what you mean. I already gave an example.
You don't seem to understand what deletions in the meta-model of NLP are, do you?
 
Last edited:
I can give you an example of a deletion I used in the past during a conversation:

"It's over now."

Question: What exactly is over now?

"I’m so sad"

Question: what are you sad about exactly?
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
What do you mean with 'in yourself'? Can you give an example of a deletion "in yourself", Daylighstar. I don't understand what you mean. I already gave an example.
You don't seem to understand what deletions in the meta-model of NLP are, do you?
Click to expand...

"In yourself" means whether you yourself are selectively excluding parts of your experience.
My question means whether your recognize that you yourself are doing this.
 
Maartenn100 said:
I can give you an example of a deletion I used in the past during a conversation:

"It's over now."

Question: What exactly is over now?

"I’m so sad"

Question: what are you sad about exactly?
...
Click to expand...
And what is the 'deletion' in that?


Maartenn100 said:
...
But you ask for a deletion 'in myself'.
Weird question.
Click to expand...
Not the 'deletion' itself, the act of 'deletion'.
Obviously.
 
It's a term used by NLP: a deletion. It's just missing information in the sentence.
Like 'generalisations' or 'distortions'.
 
Forget the terms 'selectively excluded'.
It's just about missing information in the sentence.
 
You seem to overfocus on how you define a term in NLP. The meta-model is very useful or pragmatic. And that's the main reason I want to accept that model. I'm not interested in the true definition of deleted. It's the definition of Bandler and Grinder.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
You seem to overfocus on how you define a term in NLP. The meta-model is very useful or pragmatic. And that's the main reason I want to accept that model. I'm not interested in the true definition of deleted. It's the definition of Bandler and Grinder.
Click to expand...

I am simply following the explanation in the link which you provided. I am focusing on it because you appear to want to ignore it.
Why are you not interested in what you call the "true definition of deleted", the one by Bandler and Grinder?
 
I'm not interested in an academic discussion about the term 'deletion' in the meta-model either to the sex of angels or to how many could dance on the head of a pin.
 
Maartenn100 said:
The meta-model is very useful or pragmatic for critical thinkers. And that's the main reason I want to accept that model. I'm not interested in an academic discussion about the term 'deletion' in the meta-model either to the sex of angels or to how many could dance on the head of a pin.
Click to expand...

I would like to focus the attention of the reader on the change in post content of the above post.

You accept the model but not its original definitions and explanations?

Why?
 
'Ecluded information' or 'missed information' is the same thing, Daylightstar.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Daylightstar: I do a serious effort to explain the meta-model of NLP as being a useful model for sceptics and critical thinkers. And Daylighstar is just making a joke of it.
Thank you, Daylighstar.

Maybe next time, I'm not going to explain something anymore in detail. You don't seem to appreciate the fact that I explain this more carefully.

It's the typical false dilemma of this forum: it must be perfect and a breakthrough in science or it is nonsense.
Something, inperfect, but very useful is still not good enough.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
Daylightstar: I do a serious effort to explain the meta-model of NLP as being a useful model for sceptics and critical thinkers. And Daylighstar is just making a joke of it.
Thank you, Daylighstar.

Maybe next time, I'm not going to explain something anymore in detail. You don't seem to appreciate the fact that I explain this.
Click to expand...

It is the detail of NLP that you selectively exclude from your experience. It is certain questions which you ignore in order to selectively exclude them from your experience.

Can you recognize that in yourself?
 
Maartenn100 said:
Daylightstar: I do a serious effort to explain the meta-model of NLP as being a useful model for sceptics and critical thinkers. And Daylighstar is just making a joke of it.
Thank you, Daylighstar.

Maybe next time, I'm not going to explain something anymore in detail. You don't seem to appreciate the fact that I explain this more carefully.

It's the typical false dilemma of this forum: it must be perfect and a breakthrough in science or it is nonsense.
Something, inperfect, but very useful is still not good enough.
Click to expand...

All you have to do is engage in the questions asked. You don't do this very well and consequently you do not explain anything very well.
On top of that, you demonstrate that you do not really understand the subject of your attachment all that well.

These are things you appear to want to selectively exclude from your experience, but what you don't understand all that well, is that others don't (selectively) exclude it from their experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom