[Neurons] 2010 Meta Reflections #1

[tim at coachingunity.co.za]

 From Tim Goodenough
email: tim at coachingunity.co.za

Wow, some really cool ideas and possibilities. I am a big believer in  
collaboration, especially multi-disciplinary collaboration. There is  
simply so much to learn!  The challenge I had was that I didn't know  
enough to tell if the person I was considering working with was an  
expert, or expert at sounding like an expert. I want to add the most  
value I can, so I want to work with experts.  As such I have developed  
my own criteria for "How do I know if this person is an expert" so  
aside from values and intention, I now have some more solid criteria  
to decide intellectually do I want to seek out someone to collaborate  
with?

I wrote up these criteria on my blog recently, so I thought it might  
be useful to share.

Heres to more collaborating!!

http://mentaltoughness.blog.rugbyiq.com/?p=181

How to pick an Expert?

At the last Investec Academy course in Riebeck West, I chatted to some  
of the boys about how they were finding the lectures. A comment was  
made about how they realized one of the lecturer’s was really top  
notch, only towards the middle of his second lecture (the player had  
lost some of the value of the first lecture and he was now kicking  
himself). The lecturer’s style was to share expert knowledge rather  
than to entertain. More dictionary than comic book, however his  
knowledge was second to none. I then asked the player what was his  
criteria for deciding if someone was an expert? He hadn’t thought of  
that, so I shared my thoughts which are detailed below.

Its important to break things down a bit, I am going to go into a lot  
of detail here; however if you just want the just of it read the bold  
headings.  *you will have to read the blog article to check out the  
BOLD*

Holders of expert knowledge are not always expert at helping others  
learn that expert knowledge. These are two separate skills. Knowing at  
an expert level and the ability to teach that content are different  
skillsets.

Many of us learn through our metaphor for learning. Does your metaphor  
enhance or detract from your learning from an expert (or anyone)? ? If  
your metaphor for learning is that of a detective; who needs to  
analyze all the clues before making a decision, your learning will be  
slow, but once you have learnt something it is there forever. You may  
not know your metaphor explicitly, but just see if you can answer the  
question, “If I had a metaphor for learning, what would it be?”

My metaphor is: I think of learning as a sieve. Anything anyone has to  
say goes into the sieve to be considered. Expert or Beginner,  
qualified or not, it all goes into the sieve. Everything is  
considered. What passes through the sieve into my knowledge/mindset  
has two initial criteria. Does it make sense OR Does it work? Many  
great ideas are rejected out of hand because they ‘don’t make sense’  
If it makes sense and it doesn’t work there is an application error,  
if it works and doesn’t make sense there is an error in my thinking or  
mindset – what have I rejected or not considered that I now need to?  
Once it has gone through that filter, the last filter – does this fit  
with my values and ethics? Even if it doesn’t, I need to understand it  
so I don’t automatically disrespect the people who chose to use this  
info.

There are two primary types of Experts – The traditional expert,  
someone who is blinkered and focused on one subject exclusively (or  
almost exclusively.) This was the expert that predominated before the  
information age. The second type of expert is The Sequencer or the  
Collector expert, this is the expert who sorts through other experts  
work to thread together cutting edge ideas and link previously unseen  
and unnoticed compatible ideas. This type of expert is best typified  
by Malcolm Gladwell. There is also an emergent Hybrid Expert** who  
combines the best of the both of these attributes, but those are very  
rare indeed.

     ** Having just started reading Gladwell’s latest book, “What the  
dog saw”, it is now clear to me after reading his introduction that he  
is also a hybrid expert - perhaps he was all along 

 and I am now  
only able to see it 
.  :-)

In Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers, he quotes some of J.Anders  
Ericson work, who identified that a traditional expert requires 10 000  
hours to be masterful, or roughly 10 focused years on one subject to  
become an expert. He referenced The Beatles (music), Bobby Fisher  
(chess), Bill Joy (computer programming), Bill Gates (computer  
programming) as examples of this – all ‘traditional experts.’ What  
Gladwell the sequencer missed (or failed to mention in his book) was  
the learning strategies that were required to become expert. Every one  
of the experts was given direct and immediate feedback on what was  
working or not working as they learnt and improved. For the Beatles it  
was crowd response and feedback when they were playing 7 days a week  
and upwards of 12 hours a day. For Bobby Fisher, he either won or lost  
and for Joy and Gates, their program either compiled and worked or  
didn’t. There are numerous examples of people who have spent 20 years  
on just one thing, and by no stretch of the imagination are they  
experts.

An expert is enthusiastic about their subject matter. To spend 10  
years (and often much more) dedicating yourself to something and  
getting maximum value you got to love it! Does your expert love what  
they are talking about?

Both the traditional expert and Sequencer expert need to be expert  
learners. Before the information age a traditional expert could  
sometimes get away with just learning from his/her own experiences,  
but even those cases are very rare, they are more the case of being  
informed by previous great thinkers, and not collaborating with others  
after a certain stage (Eg Leonardo Da Vinci), rather than 100% self  
learners. The modern expert learner (the true nature of the Sequencer  
Expert) needs to do both, be informed and collaborate, or else in the  
information age you will be left behind. Some traditional experts get  
stuck in a certain dogma or style of thinking, which will limit him or  
her in a very specific way which can be difficult to overcome, simply  
because they are not challenging their own thinking and assumptions.

Expert learners don’t let their ego get in the way of their learning,  
they can be wrong and can own up to it, they will also tell you what  
areas they are not expert in. These traits fast track their own  
learning.

Unfortunately many experts have supersized egos; so when you consider  
what they have to say, try to work out how their ego is limiting their  
knowledge and figure out what YOU are going to do about it.  This can  
often be challenging and difficult to do; so as a rule of thumb, the  
bigger the ego the more critical your thinking needs to be.

An expert is not tied to one specific dogma/thinker/methodology/style  
– they create their own hybrids and specialize in that hybrid. They  
may prefer one methodology or hybrid and that in itself is not a  
negative – the negative is when they don’t challenge their own  
process, thinking or method. The key way to ascertain if your expert  
is dogmatic is to ask them about the weaknesses in their own  
content/style/dogma/methodology. Their response will tell you all you  
need to know, regardless of what words they use.

Due to the collaborative requirement of the information age, a modern  
expert (traditional or sequencer) will be able to tell you who are the  
people that informed their thinking and who are the people they are  
currently working/collaborating with.

An expert rides the continuum between simplicity and details. For the  
masterful, truly the mastery is in the details. This kind of detail is  
not for details sake, it is just the ability to know each and every  
important and relevant aspect about what you are talking about, so  
when you simplify you know what to include and what to not include,  
and if required he/she can get to the detail to make a point or answer  
a question.

In my mind only the ignorant or expert can make things simple. They  
can break things down to their core components, and conceptualize what  
they are talking about. At an expert teacher level, they can use the  
words you used in your question to clarify their points whilst giving  
you a simple answer. At an expert expert teacher level, they can not  
only break things down to concepts using your words, they can also  
teach you in the most optimal way to absorb the information - they can  
order the information in progressively relevant chunks.

If you hear something explained simply use the points above to work  
out what you may be dealing with; In a nutshell, consider anything  
spoken by someone who is humble, enthusiastic, can speak simply –  
whilst sharing relevant detail and shares where they got their  
knowledge from whilst acknowledging their own learning’s and  
limitations.

Make your 2010 count!

TG

Quoting "L. Michael Hall" <meta at acsol.net>:


> From: L. Michael Hall

>

> Meta-Coach Reflections #1

>

> January 4, 2009

>

>

>

> IS COLLABORATION POSSIBLE

>

> IN THE NLP WORLD?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Since I've been writing some Reflections about NLP, misunderstandings, hype,

> the Cult Model, etc. I've received not a few emails essentially asking the

> question of the title, "Is collaboration even possible in the NLP world?"  A

> few writers have taken me to task about it saying that I'm dreaming and not

> realistic and holding on to a hope that's long gone.  A couple people wrote

> to ask "How would it happen?" and "What can we do?" to encourage more

> collaboration in this field of individualists?

>

>

>

> As I've reflected on this feedback, one thing I've become aware of is that

> if we do not collaborate, the field will not cohere sufficiently to continue

> as a field.  That happened to the Human Potential Movement-a movement that

> once had 400 "Growth Centers" around the world and by Carl Rogers' estimate

> over five million trained in the model.  And while individuals persist to

> this day who remember "the movement," the original flame of the HPM has long

> been put out and all of those original Growth Centers have long closed their

> doors.

>

>

>

> So yes, maybe I am unrealistic and naive and over-optimistic about

> collaboration, yet without it NLP as we know it today has a strong

> possibility of not making it.  And I think that would be tragic- more than

> tragic, a tremendous loss to the human spirit and condition.

>

>

>

> So what can we do?  If you share with me these convictions about the value

> of NLP (and Neuro-Semantic NLP), then what can we do?  Well, first and

> foremost we can operate in a cooperative and collaborative way to

> demonstrate what our words about working together mean.  In our attitude and

> talk we can develop a fully congruent inclusiveness of language and we can

> extend ourselves to invite others for collaborative projects and join those

> projects that are underway.

>

>

>

> Along that line, I'd recommend that you take every advantage of every

> opportunity to go to Conferences, Congresses, and Events put on by the NLP

> community.  Demonstrate your good will and cooperative spirit.  That's one

> thing I attempt to do and have done every year for many years.

>

>

>

> Then there is the importance of dialogue- of staying in communication.  It

> is far, far too easy to step aside and avoid the "conversation" that's

> occurring in the NLP field.  And that's especially true for those groups

> that are so exclusive and judgment, who do "pure" NLP in contrast to all the

> rest of us who don't meet their levels of "purity."  I engaged some of that

> camp recently at the NLP Conference in London.  The first half hour, I just

> listened.  I listened to one guy's judgments of the field, his judgment

> against any so-called "NLP" person who had not studied in their camp and

> against people like myself "contaminating" NLP with new stuff not sanctioned

> by their guru.  I listened respectfully for over 30 minutes.

>

>

>

> When he had pretty much got all of that off his chest, I asked if I could

> ask some questions.  When I got the green light, I began asking for about

> the when and what of his criteria for what made up "pure" NLP.  I asked who

> appointed so-and-so the guru who made those decisions?  I asked if he

> conferred with the other co-developers about assuming that right.  With each

> question, I had to do more listening, which I did.  And that led to new

> questions which I asked.

>

>

>

> It took 90 minutes, but after that the guys began to relax and we began

> laughing together about some of the silly things we were talking about.  And

> at the end, I told them to pass on my regards to so-and-so and then wished

> them well.  They both said they were surprised by me, that I was more

> likeable than they expected (! which made me wonder what they had been

> told!), and that I had made "some points that they would think about."

>

>

>

> Now who knows what good may come out of that.  Maybe none.  But I felt that

> at least there was a human touch, there was some dialogue, there was some

> decent conversation.  I invited them to read some of the critiques I had

> written on the subject (which they didn't even know existed).

>

>

>

> A spirit of cooperation cannot emerge when people are in isolation of each

> other.  If we isolate ourselves, there will be no conversation and without

> conversation, no dialogue.  So that's at least one beginning place.

>

>

>

> Another is to more authentically operate from abundance.  If we act as if

> there's scarcity and fight over "my" clients, "my" people, "my"

> participants, we deny one of the basic tenets of NLP and Self-Actualization

> Psychology.  Now I think I know the key reason some trainers will work hard

> to actually hide the fact that there are other NLP trainers out there-they

> are afraid that they will be compared and will fall short in terms of skills

> and competence!

>

>

>

> So, operating out of a sense of their own inferiority, they boaster

> themselves as "the best," the "purest," the "special," and don't encourage

> their participants to get training by others.  Conversely, if you're good,

> if you know what you're doing- the excellence of someone else takes nothing

> away from you.  Their skill adds to NLP and what we can do with NLP.  After

> all, don't we encourage differences, the unique gifts of each person?

> Another person's unique skills enriches me and this field.  And unless I'm

> suffering from a paranoid inferiority, I will be proud to recommend others

> even if they do not agree entirely with me.  Surely it's time to outgrow

> that childish attitude, isn't it?

>

>

>

> Collaboration is a possibility and an essential one.  Make we all do what we

> can to move this field to one of increasing collaboration!

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> --- Meta-Coach Trainings coming 2009 - 2010

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> China --- 2010

>

>       Meta-Coaching in two parts --   January 17-22 and May 9-14  (6 days

> each time):

>

> Includes also Module II (Coaching Genius).

>

>             Guangzhou, China:  Sponsor: Team Huang --- supported by

> Neuro-Semantic Trainers:

>

> Mandy Chai and Wilkie Choi   For Chinese---   yeshow at 163.net .  For English

> speakers:

>

> Mandy Chai: chaimansun at yahoo.com.hk

>

>

>

>

>

> Mexico --- 2010

>

>      In two parts --- March 4-7 (March 3 for Team Leaders) and April 15-18

> (April 14 for Team Leaders).

>

>      Sponsor: Salom Change Dynamics-  www.salomchd.com  (55) 30930687 ---

> emilia at salomchd.com

>

>

>

> Trainers Training --- in NLP and NS --- NSTT

>

> 1)    January and June --- Hong Kong:  January 25-31 and June 4-11.

> Contact Mandy Chai: chaimansun at yahoo.com.uk

>

>

>

>

> 2)    June --- Grand Junction Colorado:  June 19-July 3.  Contact Dr. Hall:

> meta at acsol.net

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> L.  Michael Hall, Ph.D.

>

> (ISNS) International Society of Neuro-Semantics

>

> The International Meta-Coach System

>

> P.O. Box 8

>

> Clifton, CO.  81520 USA

>

> 1 970-523-7877

>

>       <http://www.neurosemantics.com/> www.neurosemantics.com

>

>        <http://www.neuro-semantics-trainings.com/>

> www.neuro-semantics-trainings.com

>

>        <http://www.self-actualizing.org/> www.self-actualizing.org

>

>        <http://www.meta-coaching.org/> www.meta-coaching.org

>

>        <http://www.ns-video.com/> www.ns-video.com

>

>

>

> To sign up for a free subscription to the egroup of Neuro-Semantics

> (Neurons) go to  <http://www.neurosemantics.com/> www.neurosemantics.com ---

> you can  subscribe and unsubscribe there.   Meta Reflection articles by Dr.

> Hall are sent out every Monday and meta-Coach Reflections sent out every

> Wednesdday to the Meta-Coaches egroup.  Contact Dr. Hall at  meta@ acsol.net

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>