Полное совпадение, включая падежи, без учёта регистра

Искать в:

Можно использовать скобки, & («и»), | («или») и ! («не»). Например, Моделирование & !Гриндер

Где искать

Если галочки не стоят — только metapractice

Показаны записи 61 - 70 из 54323

meta_eugzol в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)

O. K. Now make a mark on the paper, any old scribbling mark like a baby that can’t write makes. Just any old crooked mark! That’s something you don’t even have to learn.
O. K. Now make a straight mark on the paper, like you make with a nail when you want to saw a board straight or with a stick when you mark a row in the garden. You can make it short or long or straight up and down or just lying down.
O. K. Now make a mark like the hole in a doughnut and then two marks like the halves of the doughnut when you break the doughnut in halves.
O. K. Now make two slanted marks, one like one side of the gable roof of a barn and the other like the other side.
O. K. Now make a mark like a horse’s crupper standing on the little end. And now poke the pencil in the paper and make just a little spot.
O. K. Now all those marks you made you can make different sizes and in different places on the paper and in different order and even one on top of the other or one next to another. O. K.?
Now, those marks that you made and can make again any old time [straight, vertical, horizontal, and oblique lines; circles, semicircles, etc.] are writing, but you don’t know that it is writing. You don’t have to believe that it is writing—all you have to do is know that you can make those marks and that isn’t hard to know, because you already know it. Now I’m going to awaken you and do the same thing all over, and I want you to practice at home making those marks. O. K.?
Milton H. Erickson
Reprinted with permission from The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, July 1959, 2, 3-21

A 70-year-old woman born in a rural community had not been allowed to attend school, since her parents did not believe in education for women. At the age of 14 she married a youth of 16, whose formal education was limited to his signature for signing checks and “figgering.” The bride was pleased with her husband’s greater education and resolved to have him teach her, since she resented her lack of schooling. This hope did not materialize. During the next six years she was kept busy with farm work and pregnancies, but she did learn to “figger” excellently but only mentally, since it was apparently impossible for her to learn to write numerals. Neither was she able to learn to sign her name.
At the age of 20 she hit upon the idea of furnishing room and board for the local rural schoolteacher, with the intention of receiving, in return for reduced rates, the much desired instruction in reading and writing.
Each school year for the next 50 years she made and kept her agreement, and the teachers hopefully began the attempt. Finally, some soon, others only after prolonged labor, abandoned the task of teaching her as hopeless. As the community grew, the number of teachers increased until she was boarding, year after year, a total of four. None succeeded, despite the sincerity of her desire and the honesty of their effort. Her children went through grade school, high school, and college, and they too tried to instruct their mother but without results.
Each time she was given a lesson, invariably she developed, after the manner of a seriously frightened small child, a state of mental blankness or a state of frantic, disorganized effort to please that led to a total impasse.
It was not that “Maw” was unintelligent. She had an excellent memory, good critical judgment, listened well, and was remarkably well informed. She often gave strangers, through her conversation, the impression that she had a college education, despite her faulty grammar.
At the time she was seen by the writer, she and her husband had been retired for some years, but she was still boarding teachers, three at that time. These three had made it a joint project for several months to teach her the elements of reading and writing but were finally forced to give up. They described her as:
It’s always the same. She starts the lesson period full of enthusiasm and hope, and that’s the way you feel, too. But inside of a minute you’ll swear that you must be talking a foreign language to her because she doesn’t understand a thing you say or do. No matter what you say or do, she just sits there with those eager, troubled eyes, trying hard to make sense out of the nonsense you seem to be saying to her. We’ve tried everything. We’ve talked to some of our friends who have tried. She is just like a badly scared child who has blanked out completely, except that she doesn’t seem scared but just blanked out. Because she is so intelligent, we just couldn’t believe that she couldn’t learn easily.

meta_eugzol в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)

The children couldn't believe their ears. Here was a teacher telling them to cheat! When people hear the word 'cheat' they are shocked. We are taught from an early age that cheating is wrong, and indeed it is. But this teacher was not talking about cheating the way we normally understand the term. He was talking about using your mind in a way that you never did before.
The teacher (Richard Bandler) was talking about organising and driving your brain so that it helps you to spell consistently, speak fluently, calculate effectively, read efficiently, remember consistently and learn easily.
When learners are taught the quick and easy steps to learning it does seem that they have an unfair advantage, unless or until of course all children are taught the same processes. So some people may think this is cheating, while learners today might use the term 'learning hacks'. We prefer the terms learning on purpose and thinking on purpose.
Application of Implications of Lashley’s Researches in a Circumscribed Arteriosclerotic Brain Condition
Milton H. Erickson
Reprinted with permission from Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1963, 16, 779-780.

zoroastp в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)


zoroastp в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)

По ДПДГ/емдр новое исследование
The Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (or TEF) is a government assessment of the quality of undergraduate teaching in universities and other higher education providers in England, which may be used from 2020 to determine whether state-funded providers are permitted to raise tuition fees. Higher education providers from elsewhere in the United Kingdom are allowed to opt-in, but the rating has no impact on their funding. The TEF rates universities as Gold, Silver or Bronze, in order of quality of teaching.[1][2][3] The first results were published in June 2017. This was considered a "trial year" (even though the non-provisional ratings awarded are valid for 3 years[4]) and is to be followed by a "lessons learned exercise" that will feed into the 2018 TEF and longer-term plans for subject-level ratings.[5][6] In October 2017 the official title of the exercise was officially renamed from Teaching Excellence Framework to the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_Excellence_Framework
Дополнительные графы

meta_eugzol в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)

На мой взгляд, в технике Ценностных Иерархий ("ЦИ", такое теперь принятое название модели), при подобном применении, вполне уместно и полезно вводить дополнительные графы (столбцы). Например, вы предлагаете фиксировать внутренние образы.
При этом стандартные графы остаются. Иначе ЦИ начнёт "расползаться". Внешние стимулы ко внутренним находятся стандартными вопросами метамодели из серии "если субъект затрудняется ответить", например:
— "какие внешние стимулы Х УСИЛИВАЮТ образ Y?"
— "какой внешний стимул Х НАПОМИНАЕТ об образе Y?"
— "вот у вас на уме образ Y... а теперь, сразу как вы обратили внимание на внешний мир, что X первым делом из-вне бросается в глаза, или слышится, или тактильно ощущается?"
— "какие внешние стимулы X ассоциативно связаны с образом Y?"
...ну и т.п.
Кстати, стимулами могут быть написанные или звучащие слова, в числе прочих модальностей.

friendlyatom в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)

(б) перед прописыванием неких позитивных целей следует на каждую одну цель расписывать ценностную иерархию вида/ на основании альтернативы общего вида: цель возможно достичь<> цель невозможно достичь
довольно интересный эффект, сделал с целью, которая вызывала затруднение.
теперь даже необычно то что цель, ранее длительное время была сформулирована по другому.
цель переформулирована в более общем контексте
Отношение к вопросам: в позитивной формулировке для этой цели более естественны.
Ещё возник вопрос, при выявлении стимулов обстановки ШкалыДоминированияПредпочтений, иногда для некоторых целей в роли стимулов "обстановки" выступают как бы образы во внутреннем пространстве, для которых довольно быстро находятся слова предпочтения. С одной стороны это отход от процедуры выявления ШкалыДоминированияПредпочтений, с другой стороны там довольно мало стимулов именно внешней обстановки и больше стимулов внутренней обстановки.
В замешательстве, оставить так ? сделать осуществляя поиск именно стимулов внешней обстановки ?

Дочитали до конца.