tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27944116064673630482024-03-16T11:51:53.322-07:00A Better Life PerthBetter Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-22132586314434365302024-03-01T20:15:00.000-08:002024-03-01T20:15:19.195-08:00<p> THE ART OF MANAGING</p><br />YOUR EMOTIONS -II<br /><br /> <br /><br />In the art of
managing your emotions for your own emotional intelligence,<br />the first step is
acceptance. Without acceptance, there will be and can be<br />no control. Why?
Because you cannot control what you don't accept. By not<br />accepting, you
reject it and what you reject, you put outside of your<br />control. It's a
vicious circle.<br /><br /> <br /><br />2) Explore to Understand.<br /><br />If you want to
know why it's important to accept your emotion, this is the<br />reason. You need
to understand what, if anything, your emotion is trying to<br />say to you. As I
noted in the earlier posts, mind and emotion are not two<br />radically distinct
phenomena, they are actually two parts of a singular<br />process-your mind-body
system. That's why every thought involves an emotion<br />and why every emotion
involves thoughts. This is obvious with the primary<br />emotions: to have anger
you have to have angry thoughts; for fear, there has<br />to be fearful thoughts;
where there is sadness, sad thoughts, etc. "As you<br />think, so you feel."
While that's the basic principle, it is not the only<br />principle. There are
many more.<br /><br /> <br /><br />The cognitive aspect of any and every emotion informs
you about its message.<br />So far example, anger always tells you that something
feels as if it is<br />violating your values. Fear always tells you that
something feels as if you<br />are in danger or that something is threatening to
you. Sadness always tells<br />you that something feels as if you have loss
something. Guilt always tells<br />you that it feels as if you've done something
wrong.<br /><br /> <br /><br />But notice that while the emotion is sending you a
message, the message is<br />indeterminate. It is not absolute. It is telling
you that "something feels<br />as if..." Now whether your anger, fear, sadness,
guilt, etc. is true<br />depends on your thinking, your relating to someone or
something, and the<br />context. If there is a true threat, danger, loss, or
wrong-then your<br />emotion is true and appropriate. And you need to listen to
it. In that<br />case your emotion's message is critical for your well-being.
Listen to it<br />and take appropriate actions. <br /><br /> <br /><br />But if it is not
true, if it is wrong-and it often is (!), then listening to<br />your emotion is
not in your best interest. In fact, it may be disastrous<br />for you to listen
to it or to heed it. And that's why the first thing you<br />have to do is
explore the emotion to understand it. That's why you start<br />with acceptance
of the emotion. By embracing the emotion, you can register<br />it, notice it,
and then ask it, "What are you trying to tell me?" At this<br />point, check out
three key factors of the emotion.<br /><br /> <br /><br />A) Your thinking. What are
you thinking that's generating the emotion?<br />"I'm angry because John said I
wasn't using my head." If it were true, what<br />value does that violate? "My
honor." So your honor is at stake when John<br />says those words? Your honor is
that fragile that those words disturb your<br />sense of honor? "Well, he
shouldn't say that!" Because ...? Because I<br />don't want him to say those
words? You mean he doesn't have the right to<br />think that, n a given context,
you didn't use your head? "Well, no ... but<br />I don't like him saying that?"
Did you use your head in that context?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Thinking generates
emotions. If the thinking is inaccurate, if it is<br />childish, if it is peevish
to begin with, then the emotion will also be<br />inaccurate or childish or
distorted. So check it out. How grown-up and<br />adult is your thinking? What
distortions, biases, or fallacies may your<br />thinking contain? Is it current
thinking or is it old dated thinking from<br />your childhood?<br /><br /> <br /><br />B)
Your Body. When any of us have not been feeling well, not sleeping
well,<br />eating well, etc., our emotions can be on the edge and ready to
over-react<br />to the most benign trigger. You know this if you have a cold or
the flu, if<br />you are sleep deprived, if you have been drinking too much.
Because an<br />emotion is a somatic (body) response, if "the hardware" of your
emotions is<br />under stress and strain-your emotions can be overly
sensitive,<br />over-reactive, and therefore highly inaccurate. You probably need
a nap or<br />a bowl of hot soup or a walk in the sunshine!<br /><br /> <br /><br />Set
your goal to have a "healthy mind in a healthy body" and then you will<br />find
that your emotions will work more optimally. Years ago I heard a<br />famous
therapist say, "At the bottom of a lot of depression is a lazy butt."<br />For
your body to be healthy you need to exercise your muscles for
skeleton<br />strength, your heart and lungs for cardio-vascular strength, and to
stretch<br />for flexibility strength. That's why with many negative emotions,
the first<br />thing to do is breathe deeply for a period of time. It will
dissipate a lot<br />of the emotional energy and change the bio-chemistry in your
brain and body.<br /><br /> <br /><br />C) Your context. Emotions are highly sensitive
to where. Because most<br />emotions are social in nature and have to do with our
relationships to<br />others, to experiences, and to situations, where you are
strongly conditions<br />how you experience your emotions. There's several
reasons for this. One<br />goes back to meaning- meaning is entirely
context-dependent. What anything<br />means depends on where it is said. "How
are you?" becomes a very different<br />question when asked by a friend, a doctor,
a therapist, your mother, etc.<br />And if the meaning is dependent on the
context, so will the resulting<br />emotion.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Another reason goes
to the fact that most people constrain their emotions<br />much more in public
than they do in private. What they would never consider<br />thinking or feeling
in public, they would easily do if at home. Sometimes<br />the transformative
results in therapy, and even coaching, are delayed for<br />this reason-the person
doesn't yet feel safe enough or comfortable enough to<br />disclose his thoughts
and feelings. Sometimes all of the negative emotions<br />that show up as
frustration, stress, embarrassment, anger, fear, insecurity,<br />anxiety, and on
and on that get activated at work ... and having a way of<br />expressing or
releasing the emotional energy gets displaced improperly at<br />home onto one's
partner or children. Of course, that then creates all sorts<br />of emotional
problems at home! Second #2 in emotional manage: explore to<br />understand the
emotion.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.<br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-9274255224626947862024-02-21T19:21:00.000-08:002024-02-21T19:21:28.716-08:00<p> THE ART OF MANAGING</p><br />YOUR EMOTIONS -I<br /><br /> <br /><br />When it comes to
managing emotions, Aristotle said it best when he wrote:<br /><br />"Anybody can
become angry-that is easy, but to be angry with the right<br />person and to the
right degree and at the right time and for the right<br />purpose, and in the
right way-that is not within everybody's power and is<br />not easy."
<br /><br /> <br /><br />We can take the idea expressed here by Aristotle and apply it
to every<br />emotion- to feel it and to experience the emotion is easy in
comparison to<br />being able to manage it. The wisdom here is that there's
nothing wrong with<br />the emotion itself, it is just an emotion. The challenge
is feeling it in<br />relation to the right person, at the right degree, at the
right time, for<br />the right purpose, and in the right way. Ah yes, that's what
we all find<br />tough. Yet, it can be done.<br /><br /> <br /><br />You can effectively
manage your emotions so that you have your emotions,<br />rather than they having
you, by getting back to the source of your<br />emotions-your mind and your body.
Ultimately, when you learn emotional<br />management, you will have achieved what
we call emotional intelligence-an<br />intelligent use and relationship to your
emotions. Given that, how does<br />this work? How do you learn to effectively
manage your emotions?<br /><br /> <br /><br />1) Start with acceptance.<br /><br />The
beginning place is acceptance of your emotions. Why? Because you<br />cannot
control anything that you don't accept. When you do not accept, and<br />when you
reject your emotions-you thereby set up a fight, a fight that can<br />become a
war. Now instead of treating your emotions as symptoms of your<br />mind and your
body, you treat them as some kind of enemy-and yet because<br />every emotion is
your emotion, your rejection is a rejection of yourself.<br />That's why rejection
(dislike, contempt, hatred, worry, fear, anger, etc.)<br />toward your emotions
puts you in an un-win-able conflict. <br /><br /> <br /><br />To reject your emotions,
or any one specific emotion such as fear or anger,<br />is to put yourself in
self-attack. Then all of the energy that you<br />experience in that rejection
(your anger, fear, worry, anxiety, sadness,<br />etc.) becomes aimed at you. And
that means that all of that energy is going<br />to go against your mind and your
body. Think about that!<br /><br /> <br /><br />Then in that self-attack, your mind and
your body will pay the price.<br />That's why you'll get migraines, aches in your
back, neck, stomach problems,<br />ulcers, and all sorts of psycho-somatic
illnesses. The energy of your<br />emotions that are attacking you has no where
else to go. From a meta-state<br />perspective, the problem is the second emotion
and response you are making<br />to your first emotion and response. You are
rejecting your fear; you are<br />hating your anger; you are depressing with
sadness your worry, etc. In the<br />book, Dragon Slaying and Taming (1995) this
is the very structure of<br />self-attack as a pathology and why it is so
disastrous to your well-being.<br /><br /> <br /><br />In Meta-States Training, we use
the pattern Meta-Stating Troubling Emotions<br />to counter-act this "dragon"
creating process. If you use negative emotions<br />to reject an emotion or
experience, then by turning that around and use your<br />positive emotions to
accept, welcome, and embrace an emotion or<br />experience-you tame any emotional
dragon. Instead of hating, fear, or<br />angering at your emotion, you accept it
and you permit it.<br /><br /> <br /><br />When you refuse to accept an emotion, you not
only fight it and start a war<br />on your insides, you prevent your own awareness
of your emotions. You blind<br />yourself to what you are feeling. As you then
expel the emotion from your<br />awareness, you have less and less influence over
it. That's one reason,<br />rejecting the emotion and trying to make it go away,
does not work.<br />Conversely, the paradox of acceptance is that by accepting the
emotion,<br />giving yourself permission to experience the emotion, you thereby
empower<br />yourself to be able to manage the emotion.<br /><br /> <br /><br />The
pattern of Meta-Stating Troubling Emotions centers primarily in
the<br />permission process. Nor does it matter who took permission away from
you-<br />whether it was a parent, a teacher, a theology, a philosophy. What
matters<br />is that now, as an adult, you take control and give yourself
permission to<br />experience and embrace your emotions. When you do that-you
will gave a new<br />level of freedom and control.<br /><br /> <br /><br />With the
acceptance of permission then you are able to do your "emotional<br />work." You
are able to let the emotion "move" (e-motion) through your body,<br />giving you
the energy to take whatever actions you need to take.<br />Metaphorically, you let
your emotions breathe and when your emotions<br />breathe, they become more
healthy, and more responsible to your guidance.<br />Conversely, when you reject
and fight an emotion, when you try to make it go<br />away, it gets stuck inside
of your and becomes toxic-sick. And then it<br />makes you sick. Now you know
why acceptance is step #1. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />L. Michael
Hall, Ph.D.<br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-48668700898774252032024-02-12T21:15:00.000-08:002024-02-12T21:15:14.297-08:00<p> KINDS & DIMENSIONS</p><br />OF EMOTIONS <br /><br /> <br /><br />In the four
previous articles, I began offering some basic definitions of<br />what an
"emotion" is. In those articles, I made numerous distinctions so as<br />to
create some more precision regarding the emotional life that we are<br />referring
to. One thing that is obvious from all of that is this: All<br />emotions are not
the same. Emotions come in many different sizes and<br />shapes. We have already
noted that there are many different levels of<br />emotions (#3) from primary
emotions to multiple levels of meta-emotions.<br />There are also different kinds
of emotions as well as emotions in different<br />dimensions. Here are some more
distinctions that we can make about<br />emotions. <br /><br /> <br /><br />The go/ no-go
emotions. Many emotions create a go energy. They are<br />excitatory, positive,
and energetic emotions that activate us to move<br />forward to our values, our
goals, and our desires. And conversely, there<br />are many emotions which
function with a no-go energy. They are inhibitory,<br />negative, and
constraining emotions. We commonly call these the "positive"<br />and the
"negative" emotions although that description is not very accurate.
<br /><br /> <br /><br />Sympathetic emotions. As already noted, there are the
sympathetic nervous<br />system emotions of the General Arousal Syndrome: stress,
excitement, fear,<br />anger, lust, and excitement. These are all primary
emotions and when you<br />feel them, you can point to the place in your body
where you experience<br />them. You encode them
somatically.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Parasympathetic emotions. The parasympathetic
nervous system also activates<br />a certain set of emotions such as relaxation,
calmness, peaceful, feeling<br />centered, etc. These restful emotions enable us
to turn down the bodily<br />activation, allowing us to feel apathetic, sleepy,
bored, etc.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Social emotions. Because the social emotions
actually make up the largest<br />number of our emotions, they suggests that one
of the primary functions of<br />emotions involve how we relate to each other.
These include: kindness,<br />care, love, hate, compassion, apathy, forgiveness,
jealousy, respect,<br />disrespect, empathy, sympathy, and the list goes on and
on. For this<br />reason, there's a very close connection between emotional
intelligence and<br />social intelligence. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Conscience emotions.
Some emotions arise from our sense of right and wrong,<br />our sense of the
ethics that we want to live by in relating to others.<br />These conscience
emotions start with empathy and sympathy, how we connect to<br />others and feel
responsibility to others and sometimes for others.<br />Conscience emotions leads
us to feel conscientious about our behavior, how<br />we relate, our integrity in
living up to our values, our congruency or<br />incongruency. Those with little
conscience will feel very little in terms<br />of others. A person who is
sociopathetic may be unable or unwilling to<br />"take second perceptual position"
and at least, try on what another person<br />may be feeling in order to
understand them.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Cathecting emotions. To cathect is to reach
out with your caring energy to<br />identify with and connect with a person,
thing, place, etc. By cathecting,<br />we "bring the world into our sense of
self" and with that, our sense of self<br />expands. Our inner world expands.
The cathecting emotions include: love,<br />desire, attachment, bonding, etc.
When we de-cathect we withdraw our<br />identity, care, sympathy, sense of
connection with the person or thing. We<br />experience this as loss, as grief,
as sadness.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Self emotions. Because there are so many aspects of
"self," there are a<br />great many self emotions: sense of self, self-confidence,
self-doubt,<br />self-efficacy, self-identity, temporal self (past self, future
self), role<br />self, gender self (masculine self, feminine self),
etc.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Meta emotions. Anyone with a self-reflexive mind
inevitably applies<br />feelings to feelings and this generates the meta
emotions. These are<br />layered and complex emotions. So in fear about fear,
one experiences<br />paranoia and if you fear the paranoia, you may create a
fearful mood, a<br />fearful attitude about life. If you anger at your
fear-of-your-fear, that<br />generates another multilayered emotion. Generally
bringing any "negative"<br />emotion and applying it to a previous emotion-you are
attacking yourself,<br />your emotions and the energy from that construct has
nowhere to go except<br />against your mind and against your body. In
Neuro-Semantics we call those<br />highly toxic emotions- "dragon states."
<br /><br /> <br /><br />Pseudo-emotions. Just as you can bring an emotion against an
emotion, you<br />can bring emotions against thoughts, against concepts, and you
can bring<br />concepts against emotions. It is in this way that we
create<br />pseudo-emotions. They seem like emotions but they are not really.
While<br />"fearing failure" is an emotion, an emotion about a concept, "shame
about<br />failure" may be a concept about a concept. That's because the 'shame'
here<br />may not be so much of an emotion as an idea- "You shouldn't be that
way,<br />feel that way, talk that way. Shame on you!" Actually you can create
all<br />sorts of pseudo-emotions by saying, "I feel..." and then add a judgment.
"I<br />feel weird," "I feel like I'm going to be fired." "I feel under
the<br />weather." "I feel judged." These are not emotions. They are
judgments<br />masquerading as emotions.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Time emotions. There are
a wide range of temporal emotions. Some are about<br />the past and some are
about the future; very few are about the present<br />moment: nostalgia, hope,
regret, worry, anxiety, anticipation, expectation.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Vestibular
emotions. The sense of balance that's generated by the inner ear<br />generates
the vestibular emotions: dizziness, disoriented, balance, joy,<br />playful,
etc.<br /><br /> <br /><br />So many kinds of emotions! What this means is that when
you begin talking<br />about emotions, don't assume that everybody is using that
word in the same<br />way as you are. They probably are not! That's why it is
always good to<br />check. "How are you using the word emotions?" "What kind or
level of<br />emotion are you referring to?"<br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-2862152085215756412024-02-04T00:29:00.000-08:002024-02-04T00:29:56.568-08:00<p> FEELINGS ARE NOT EMOTIONS</p><br /> <br /><br />While all of us use the terms feelings
and emotions interchangeably as if<br />they were equivalent, they are not the
same. Nor are they synonyms of each<br />other. The truth is that they are two
very different phenomena.<br /><br />Feelings are, at their essence, kinesthetics.
That is, physical sensations<br />of the body. If they are inside the body, we
call them propriception and if<br />they are accessed from outside of the body,
then we call them sensations or<br />feelings.<br /><br />Emotions always entails and
involves feelings, but are more than feelings.<br />To have an emotion, you also
have to have a cognitive thought as noted in<br />the previous articles.
<br /><br /> <br /><br />Kinesthetic sensations consist of a large range of bodily
sensations-<br />pressure (soft, hard), oscillation of the pressure, temperature
(cool, warm,<br />hot), moisture (wet, dry), movement (quick, slow), intensity
(low, medium,<br />high), frequency (often, some, few), rhythm (rocking,
up-and-down, etc.),<br />pain (biting, dull, constant, etc.), extent (local,
general), duration<br />(short to long). Further, the kinesthetics can be at many
different<br />locations in the body. They can have texture, shape,
etc.<br /><br /> <br /><br />When we ask, "What do you feel?" if we are using the word
'feeling'<br />accurately and properly, we are asking for the kinesthetic
sensations of the<br />emotion. We can call attention to the beating of the
heart, the pumping of<br />the lungs, and the muscle tension in the legs, arms,
face, neck, back, etc.<br />We can invite a person to notice sensations within
various parts of the<br />body.<br /><br /> <br /><br />For the General Arousal Syndrome
that is commonly referred to as both "the<br />stress response" or the "fight,
flight, freeze" response, the kinesthetics<br />of these emotions are pretty much
the same. Heart and lungs are highly<br />activated so that there is a definite
shift in breathing-sometimes even<br />hyperventilating. Eyes dilate, skin
sweats, blood is withdraw from brain<br />and stomach and sent to the larger
muscle groups preparing the body for<br />fighting or running. Adrenalin is sent
to provide more energy to the body.<br />And the body is overall highly
activated. But what do you feel in the<br />general arousal?<br /><br /> <br /><br />The
amazing thing is-it all depends. If you think, reason, and interpret<br />things
in your environment as threatening, then you will feel fear or anger.<br />Fear if
you think it is too much or that you don't want to get into a fight.<br />Anger if
you think you can handle the threat and/or if you have a habit of<br />getting
into fights. If it is too overwhelming, you might just freeze. But<br />if you
think, reason, and interpret things in that same environment as
fun,<br />exciting, a challenge, desirable, etc., then you might feel excited
or<br />lustful. Excited if the situation is positive for you (public
speaking,<br />bungee jumping, etc.) and fits your values. Lustful if the
situation<br />involves sexual stimulus or arousal. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Four
emotions- fear, anger, excitement, and lust-and they all have the
same<br />feelings at the kinesthetic level! The difference goes to one's
cognitions.<br />The bodily activation is the same, a state of heightened arousal
so that you<br />are ready to respond. But at the cognitive level, the semantics
(meanings)<br />are completely different. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Actually, this
explains why these four emotions can get mixed up, why fear<br />and anger are so
intimately connected. That's why underneath fear is<br />usually anger and why
underneath anger is usually fear. This explains why<br />the fearful move-away
from person when he reaches a threshold, and cannot<br />take any more, can become
extremely aggressive. It's why sexual stimulation<br />can become quite
perverted-a person cannot get aroused unless chocked or<br />abused in some way.
It's why the violence of rape is not as much about sex<br />as it is about
anger.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Emotions have within them feelings (kinesthetics).
Feelings, however, may<br />be just that-a feeling, a sensation, and not connected
to any emotion. In<br />experiments, people have been chemically stimulated by
having epinorphein or<br />adrinalin shot into their arms, and then asked, "What
do you feel?" Again,<br />it always depends. In these experiments it depended on
what they were<br />primed to expect. If they were primed to expect to feel
fear-they felt<br />fear. If anger, then anger; if lust, then lust. The
determining factor was<br />not in the sensation itself, but in the
interpretation-the semantics that<br />readied them to respond as they
did.<br /><br /> <br /><br />"Feelings" and "Emotions"-not the same. Shall we try to
pass a law to<br />prevent people from using 'feeling' for 'emotion?" I don't
think so. Nor<br />would it really make that much of a difference. It's
sufficient to simply<br />know that these are two very different phenomena and
that you can understand<br />your own emotions better when you know that they have
a bodily or somatic<br />base- a base of kinesthetic feelings. <br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-23735276678457713392024-01-01T23:51:00.000-08:002024-01-01T23:51:08.929-08:00<p> WHY</p><br />EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Today nearly everybody knows
about emotional intelligence. Well, at least<br />most everyone has heard that
term. Emotional intelligence is today a pretty<br />regular offering in
organization as business has been discovering that it is<br />not sufficient to
have smart and talented people on board, they also need to<br />have some basic
emotional intelligence. In fact, the more a business<br />involves customers,
teams, management, leadership, etc. the more emotional<br />intelligence is
needed.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Why is this so? Why has emotional intelligence become
popular and what is<br />it all about? The bottom line is that as a person can be
intellectually<br />smart and know all kinds of things, if a person is not smart
about oneself,<br />one's emotions, managing those emotions effectively, using
one's emotions to<br />connect with others in healthy ways, etc., then one's I.Q.
will be less<br />effective than it could be. E.Q. (emotional quotent) is about
being smart<br />about people and about yourself as a
person.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Obviously I.Q. is important, in fact, critical for a
person to understand<br />his world and cope effectively within it. This is one's
basic intelligence<br />in understanding and learning what you are doing, and how
to do it. I.Q. is<br />primarily intelligence of the outside world. E.Q. speaks
about your<br />intelligence of your inside world and the inside world of others.
It is<br />your intelligence in how you handle yourself in relationship to others,
your<br />social intelligence, your intra-personal intelligence, and your
emotional<br />intelligence about how to get along well with
others.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Why is it important? Because you and I are emotional
beings. Because we<br />are social beings. Because a great portion of our
ability to cope with<br />life, get along with others, and even get along well
with ourselves depends<br />on our emotional intelligence. It's important because
the "logic" that of<br />our internal world is very different from the "logic" of
the external world.<br />For most of us, it's obvious that the "logic" of our
emotions is not the<br />logic of mathematics or physics. Yet what may not be
equally obvious is<br />that the "logic" of our thinking, reasoning, and
interpreting also operates<br />from a different and unique
logic.<br /><br /> <br /><br />In this series of articles, I will first identify what
emotional<br />intelligence is, how we define it, and it's component parts. I
will then<br />relate it to the NLP Model about emotional states. Long before the
idea of<br />emotional intelligence arose, NLP had already focused on it and
developed a<br />great many tools for developing it, only under the terminology of
state.<br />Neuro-Semantics took this further as we introduced the idea of
meta-states<br />which are, in fact, meta-emotions and all that is implied about
these<br />higher/deeper emotional states. <br /><br /> <br /><br />>From there I will
focus in the basics in Neuro-Semantics on what we call<br />Emotional Mastery.
The purpose will be to offer many of the distinctions<br />and processes that we
use to facilitate a greater ability to manage our<br />emotions. That's important
for many reasons. First and foremost, to create<br />a sense of control. Then
you will not feel that you are a victim of your<br />emotions. Then, instead of
feeling that your emotions have you, you have<br />your emotions! Then, with a
sense of being in control, you will be able to<br />manage your stress so it is
not creating various kinds of psycho-somatic<br />illnesses and problems.
<br /><br /> <br /><br />By managing your emotions you can then put them to good use-
feeling the<br />emotions that move you (motivate you) to live life more fully-
love, joy,<br />peace, etc. Then, you can turn on the emotions that feed
curiosity and<br />wonder so that you can learn and develop, so that you can
connect and<br />contribute, so that you can unleash your best potentials, and
equally so<br />that you can use your negative emotions for your overall good.
<br /><br /> <br /><br />There are no "bad" emotions, there are just emotions. And with
every<br />emotion, there is a message of some sort. There are appropriate
and<br />inappropriate emotions, depending on the context. There are useful
and<br />unuseful emotions. There are emotions to live in (the positive
emotions)<br />and there are emotions to notice, learn from, and release (the
negative<br />emotions). And in the end, they are just emotions. They are not
commands<br />from heaven. They are not infallible-they are entirely fallible.
And<br />because they are fallible, they do not always tell us the
truth.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.<br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-26187480723327840152023-12-25T18:09:00.000-08:002023-12-25T18:09:51.204-08:00<p> NLP A Thinking Model #13</p><br /> <br />BEWARE:<br /><br />WHEN YOU THINK WITH
WORDS<br /><br /> <br /><br />How much of your thinking is done in and with words? Can
you think without<br />words, that is, apart from words? While linguists have not
given us a<br />precise percentages about this, we know that most thinking is done
with, in,<br />and through words. I would guess it is somewhere between 90 and 95
percent.<br /><br /> <br /><br />When you think, you think almost exclusively in words.
While you can<br />entertain thoughts in any of the sensory-systems (e.g., visual,
auditory,<br />kinesthetic, gustatory, olfactory), such thoughts are usually
simple and<br />direct. Perhaps someones asks, "Do you remember the dog that you
played<br />with as a child?" and you, for a moment, see that dog in the theater
of your<br />mind. You may even be able to hold on to that image, perhaps see it
as a<br />movie rather than a snapshot. Now if you wanted to, you could play
around<br />with the image. "Can you make his hair orange?" But that's about it
when<br />it comes to thinking without words.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Yet with words and
language you can do so much more. Once you have a<br />reference that you
represent, then you can create all sorts of categories,<br />concepts, and
understandings. You can classify the dog by breed, as animate<br />and living, as
intelligent, etc. As a meta-representation system, language<br />allows you to
think deeply, expansively, and thoroughly. With words you<br />create the
uniquely human world of conceptual abstractions-and tht's where<br />all of us
mostly live.<br /><br /> <br /><br />You think in words and with words. You use words
as vehicles to transfer<br />thinking and as a code to encase a thought.
Language, as a set of symbols,<br />both enables thinking as well as constrains
thinking. Some words constrain<br />your ability to think certain things. And
without language, there are all<br />kinds of things that you can't even think as
in "entertaining an idea."<br />That's why when a given language lacks certain
words, people will have all<br />sorts of problems thinking certain things.
Postman (1976) wrote, "A<br />distinction that cannot be made in language, cannot
be made conceptually."<br />(p. 242). <br /><br /> <br /><br />Now one of the most amazing
things about words is that they are not real.<br />For many people, that is an
absolutely shocking statement. They still think<br />that words are real. And
when you make that mistake, you will then probably<br />also think that "words can
hurt you." They will then talk about "verbal<br />abuse." They will talk about
some words as in "bad words," and "evil<br />words." But that's a fundamental
mistake. Words are not real. "Dog" is a<br />word, but it doesn't bark or bite
you. "Cat" is a word, but it cannot<br />scratch you. Words are symbols that
stand for some reference other than<br />themselves. And because words are
vehicles for thinking, they do not<br />contain meaning. You and I use words as
symbols to communicate to each<br />other our ideas. Yet meaning is in persons-in
you and me. We are the<br />meaning-makers. We use words to construct
meanings.<br /><br /> <br /><br />That's also why there are words and phrases that do us
a great disservice.<br />That's because they promote and enable dysfunctional
thinking. And with<br />words, to wrongly use a word is to encode an idea that
-in that context- is<br />not only worng, but can be hurtful and problematic. How
does this work? It<br />works as you take a word or phrase and use it to send a
message to your<br />mind-and-body. What your body does with the word then
depends on whether<br />you just think it or whether you believe
it.<br /><br /> <br /><br />If you just think, then you will do no semantic damage to
yourself. It<br />remains just a thought and nothing more. It is something that
you entertain<br />and play with in your mind. But if you believe it, then you
send a command<br />to your nervous systems to actualize it. You are
communicating to your<br />body, "Try to make it real." "Try to activate whatever
you can from within<br />to translate that word to the outside
world."<br /><br /> <br /><br />This is the structure of the placebo and the nocebo
processes. Believe a<br />voodoo curse on yourself and your body will make it
real. Believe a<br />doctor's prediction about your situation, and for wow and
woe, your body<br />will orient itself in that direction. Believing makes it so
in your body.<br />Believing does not make it so in the outside world, only within
your nervous<br />systems-which it sets up as a self-fulfilling and
self-organizing prophecy. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Words can be transformative,
life-giving, and/or pathological in your<br />mind-body system. So be careful as
you think with words-as you read words.<br />Reading often operates as a
self-programming process. So as you avoid the<br />bad stuff, focus on reading
only the good stuff.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />In Meta-Coaching we
notice words and then ask<br /><br /> What do you mean by X-term? How
are yo using that
word?<br /><br /> What else could
you call<br />it? What else do others call it? <br /><br /> What
context or contexts are you referring to?<br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-49894117355693844042023-12-11T22:57:00.000-08:002023-12-11T22:57:29.325-08:00<p> MAKING THE THINKING CHOICE</p><br /> <br /><br />Given that "mind" is not only a noun
(actually, a nominalization), it is<br />also a verb (#42), mind is not a thing
(as an object, entity, or substance),<br />it is a function. Mind is what you
do-and what you do is think. When you<br />"mind the gap" you are thinking about
the fact that there is a gap. When<br />you "mind" your mother, you pay attention
to, listen to, and comply with<br />what she says.<br /><br /> <br /><br />With a mind,
you have thinking power. While you can think passively by just<br />perceiving
things, and let in all kinds of thinking, true thinking is a<br />choice. It is a
choice wherein you expend effort. This means your ultimate<br />consciousness is
a volitional consciousness. And because you can choose to<br />avoid thinking, to
not focus your attention, you can choose to not do the<br />work of thinking.
Lots of people do precisely that. You can also let your<br />thinking powers
deteriorate, weaken, and become nearly useless. Yet when<br />you default on
thinking, and drift in a will-less passivity, the result is<br />that you end up
evading the adventure of life and the true joy of activating<br />your
potentials.<br /><br /> <br /><br />This is the problem with all of the social media
platforms-they encourage<br />you to adopt a policy of defaulting on thinking.
Instead they encourage you<br />to think what is Politically Correct, and to
disparage any thoughts that<br />disagree with their conventional wisdom. The end
result-if you reject the<br />work of thinking, all that's left is to become a
zombie. Once you abandon<br />your thinking powers, all that you have left are
your emotions-how you feel.<br />So you now substitute your feelings for your mind
and with it, your ability<br />to detect reality. This is the pathway to neurosis
as Nathan Branden (1969)<br />noted: <br /><br />"One of the chief characteristics of
mental illness is the policy of letting<br />one's feelings -one's wishes and
fears- determine one's thinking, guide<br />one's actions and serve as one's
standard of judgment. This is more than a<br />symptom of neurosis, it is a
prescription for neurosis. It is a policy that<br />involves the wrecking of
one's rational faculty." (p. 71)<br /><br /> <br /><br />To surrender your mind to
others, to an ideology, to what's politically<br />correct (PC) is to choose to
not think. It is to seek to be unaware, to<br />give up your humanity, to sell
your cognitive potentials and<br />self-actualization short. And all of that is a
loser's route.<br /><br /> <br /><br />If your childhood home was convolutedly
complicated or dysfunctional so that<br />understanding what was going on, and
what it meant, would require a a degree<br />in psychology, sociology, an
philosophy- it was probably easier to give up<br />even trying to understand. It
is easier to turn off your mind and retreat<br />into dreams and fantasies. And
because emotions are so strong-fear, anger,<br />guilt, confusion-it's easy to get
lost in an emotion. Yet in doing that you<br />develop the habit of not
thinking.<br /><br /> <br /><br />When you surrender your mind to emotions or to the
social environment, you<br />cannot develop an adequate contact with the world
outside, or for that<br />matter, the world inside. When you give up real
thinking, you are left with<br />no tools by which you can make contact. In the
long-term this will deepen<br />your sense of helplessness and hopelessness. We
see this in<br />poverty-stricken communities, in lots of the college protests
currently<br />going on, and even in corporate America. Regardless of the
context, people<br />have give up the ultimate human choice-the choice to use
one's mind to do<br />actual thinking. Instead, they default to the non-thinking
uses of the<br />mind-<br /><br /> automatic thinking<br /><br />
reactionary thinking <br /><br /> shallow thinking<br /><br />
borrowed thinking<br /><br /> agenda thinking<br /><br />
certainty <br /><br /> and expectations.<br /><br /> <br /><br />The solution is
to develop your mind's capacities for thinking. It is to<br />identify and
cultivate all of your mental powers. The good news is that we<br />now have
modeled "thinking" and "mind" so that we have specified three major<br />thinking
categories (essential, eureka, and executive thinking skills) and<br />14 thinking
powers. This, in turn, enables you to deliberately practice<br />these thinking
skills until you develop them as key resources in your mental<br />capacity for
thinking.<br /><br /> <br /><br />The Essence of Thinking<br /><br /> 1.
Considering<br /><br /> 2. Questioning, Exploring<br /><br />
3. Doubting<br /><br /> 4. Detailing, Indexing<br /><br /> 5.
Distinguishing<br /><br />The Eureka of Thinking <br /><br />6. Inferring
<br /><br /> 7. Organizing<br /><br /> 8.
Creating<br /><br /> 9. Synergizing<br /><br />The Executive Development of
Thinking<br /><br /> 10. Learning <br /><br /> 11.
Deciding<br /><br /> 12. Discerning<br /><br /> 13. Reflecting
<br /><br /> 14. Sacralizing <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />L.
Michael Hall, Ph.D.<br /><br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-29961557001047967082023-11-27T18:48:00.000-08:002023-11-27T18:48:04.701-08:00<p> THE ART OF DETECTING</p><br />A CLOSED-MIND<br /><br /> <br /><br />If your mind is your
central mechanism, your ultimate power, for dealing<br />with reality (which it
is), then you will naturally want to have an open<br />mind. And if you don't
want that, then recognize that it is essential if<br />you are to "deal with
reality." Think about the very first thinking<br />skill-consideration-you cannot
perform that skill if you don't have an open<br />mind. Consider requires an open
mind and, simultaneously, as you practice<br />it, it develops an open mind. You
can't consider something if you do not<br />open your mind and give an idea a
chance. You give it a chance by<br />representing it visually, reproducing it
auditorily, and kinesthetically<br />trying on the words and the conceptual frames
of the idea.<br /><br /> <br /><br />What stand in contrast to this openness? Answer:
All of the non-thinking<br />skills and states: reactivity, automatic thinking,
borrowed thinking,<br />superficial thinking, agenda thinking, "knowing," and
expecting (see<br />Executive Thinking, Brain Camp I). All of these unhealthy
thinking styles<br />close down consideration so that you do not even given an
idea a chance.<br />And when consideration is shut down, then so also are all of
the critical<br />and creative skills. After all, if a person will not consider,
then there<br />can be no questioning, doubting, detailing, and distinguishing.
That shuts<br />down all critical thinking.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Now certainly you have
experienced people with closed minds, haven't you?<br />When was the last time you
encountered a closed mind? You try to sell to a<br />friend your idea about a
certain movie, but he will not even consider going<br />to it. You ask a banker
for a loan, you know that your credit score and<br />assets are sufficient, but
no. The banker turns you down flat. You say,<br />"You haven't even actually
considered it." But no, her mind is closed.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Theoretically, why
would a person not even consider an idea? What would<br />explain that refusal?
The answer is intolerance, dogmatism, and<br />know-it-all-ism. The person
refuses to open her mind to an idea; he refuses<br />to even tolerate an idea.
And why? Because they have already decided on<br />some meaning, a meaning which
simply precludes your idea. Their previous<br />learning and knowledge functions
as, what's described in the field of<br />learning, "proactive inhibition." It
stops any new considerations cold in<br />its tracks.<br /><br /> <br /><br />If an open
mind is a mind open for business, then a closed mind is a mind<br />closed for
business. Where there is an open mind, there's a sign on that<br />person's
heart, "Open! Come on in." When you enter, you are warmly<br />greeted,
welcomed, and they ask you, "How can we help you?" Conversely,<br />where there
is a closed mind, you see a different sign, "Closed." It could<br />be, "Closed
for the night." "Closed for he Season." Or even, "Closed: Out<br />of
Business."<br /><br /> <br /><br />A closed mind says, "Go away, we don't have any room
or place for you." It<br />says, "No solicitators" and it may add, "Violators
will be prosecuted to the<br />further extent of the law." A closed mind is also
not a friendly mind; it<br />is not a mind that's interested or curious. With a
closed mind, you can<br />protect your beliefs from the danger of additional or
new facts. With a<br />closed mind, you don't have to learn anything new or
different. And without<br />new learning, you can remain the same, you maintain
or are stuck in, the<br />status quo. Now you will be untroubled by new ideas or
challenges. That's<br />the upside of a closed mind.<br /><br /> <br /><br />The downside
of a closed mind, however, is one that's much more devastating.<br />With a closed
mind, you don't grow or develop. Instead, you arrest your<br />personal
development and become stuck at a previous stage, and you probably<br />trap
yourself in numerous cognitive distortions that of which you
are<br />unconscious.<br /><br /> <br /><br />I was asked recently, "Why have you been
putting so much emphasis on<br />critical thinking skills?" Part of the answer
lies in the prevalence of<br />closed-minds. That's because critical thinking is
partly defined as an open<br />mind to facts, truth, insights as well as the
ability to think clearly,<br />accurately, and without bias. In a world as
divided as ours, we need more<br />and more open minds who can have civil
conversations, realizing all along<br />that no thought is a fact, it is just a
thought -a mental construct about<br />something. And as fallible human beings,
we are often wrong, something that<br />does not frighten an open mind.<br /><br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-262880196045658172023-11-16T16:20:00.000-08:002023-11-16T16:20:54.662-08:00<p> DO YOUR OWN THINKING!</p><br /> <br /><br />There is thinking, which everyone does and
which is inevitable, and then<br />there is real thinking, which is everyone does
not do, and which is not<br />inevitable. Thinking is an art, it is an education,
it is a discipline that<br />requires skills and competencies. All that's
required for inevitable<br />thinking is a functional brain on the top of your
shoulders, one that is not<br />brain-dead. Nearly everyone has that and so
nearly everyone "thinks." Yet<br />because there are numerous non-thinking
states, you can have a brain and not<br />use it. There are 7 kinds of
non-thinking: automatic thinking, reactive,<br />borrowed, superficial, agenda,
"knowing," and expectant (Executive Thinking,<br />Brain Camp
I).<br /><br /> <br /><br />Imagine that-a working brain which is not engaged so it
actually and truly<br />thinks! The state of non-thinking is not only possible,
it is far, far too<br />much the case with most people. Why is that? Because
thinking is hard<br />work. If you have ever struggled to understand a subject in
school, with<br />reading a difficult passage in a book, or the mechanics of how
something<br />works, and afterward felt exhausted, mentally drained, and if you
rubbed<br />your heads to ease the tension you feel, then you know that
sometimes,<br />thinking can require a lot of cognitive
effort.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Famous people have often spoke about the effort of
thinking. For example<br />Peter F. Drucker once said: "Thinking is very hard
work. And management<br />fashions are a wonderful substitute for thinking."
John Dewey wrote a book<br />at the beginning of the 20th century, How We Think,
and in it he defined<br />thinking in a way that still shocks most people: "The
origin of thinking is<br />some perplexity, confusion, or doubt." It is the
surprises and disappoints<br />of life that we don't like or can't figure out,
otherwise known as<br />"problems," that trigger us to think. No wonder some
people do not like to<br />think and do whatever they can to avoid
thinking!<br /><br /> <br /><br />Not only do senior managers in organizations
substitute "management<br />fashions" for thinking, there's another substitute you
should know about.<br />Carl Jung wrote, "Thinking is difficult, that's why most
people judge." Now<br />we are back to non-thinking-making a reactionary and
prejudicial judgment<br />rather than thinking. Then you don't have to put in the
work of actually<br />thinking something through. <br /><br /> <br /><br />When Albert
Einstein thought about thinking, he noted something which many<br />of us have
said about schools. Namely, schools should not only focus on<br />what to think,
but how to think. Most do not. Einstein said, "Education is<br />not the
learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think." True<br />thinking is
not inevitable, you have to learn how to do it. You have to<br />learn how to use
your mind to think, and thereby become mindful, that is,<br />consciously aware
and alive.<br /><br /> <br /><br />A fascinating thing about thinking is that you have
to do it, no one can do<br />it for you. Now it is true that you can learn from
someone and take on his<br />thoughts and think her thoughts after her. Because of
this, we all can<br />benefit from the quality thinking of those who came before
us and we do not<br />have to start from ground zero. I can read from Aristotle.
Then, what he<br />learned and discovered thousands of years ago, I can think
those same<br />thoughts, try them on, and make them mine. We call that
learning. It is<br />the process by which I can come to understand what someone
else has already<br />figured out or discovered. But again, you have to do the
thinking to<br />transfer those thoughts into your neurology, nervous systems and
brain. No<br />one can do that for you. Nor will those thoughts get inside you
by osmosis.<br /><br /> <br /><br />We can also learn to be excellent thinking partners
to each other. This was<br />the discovery of Vygotsky when he described how a
more informed person can<br />scaffold the learning of a less informed person
thereby accelerating the<br />development of the learner (Executive Learning).
But again, the learner has<br />to do his or her own
thinking.<br /><br /> <br /><br />What happens when you do your own thinking? Obviously
they learn. You come<br />to know more and when you integrate that learning, you
can do more. You can<br />become more skilled and effective in doing things, more
self-confident, more<br />independent, more able to stand on your own two feet.
You become empowered.<br />As you use your mind to think and develop your thinking
powers and skills,<br />you becomes more self-determining and able to discern
truth from falsehood.<br />And all of that unleashes your
potentials.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Now you know what we are striving to do in
Neuro-Semantics. As we teach the<br />Meta-Model, the Meta-Programs model, the
Meta-States model, etc., our larger<br />objective is to enable people to access
their ultimate power-their thinking<br />powers. This makes people more
intelligent, more rational, and more<br />informed. And because we want everyone
to do this, it facilitates everyone<br />in becoming more democratic, more
respectful, and more tolerant and<br />accepting of others<br /><br /> <br /><br />In
enabling people to become excellent critical thinkers and
creative<br />thinkers-we want and encourage people to do their own thinking.
This<br />downplays the need to conform your thinking to anyone else's. This
makes<br />redundant any need to have a creed and force people to submit their
minds to<br />only the "politically correct" thinking. In this way, we work to
develop<br />thinkers who can engaged in healthy conversations, debates, and
dialogues.<br />They do not have to agree, in fact, if people are truly thinking,
they<br />probably will not agree. There will be lots of differences. That is
not<br />only okay, it is to be expected. It is desirable.<br /><br /> <br /><br />The
professions that we focus on and develop in Neuro-Semantics (and NLP)<br />are
thinking professions: coaches, consultants, therapists, leaders,<br />managers,
etc. To be highly effective at any of these professions-you have<br />to be a
clear, accurate, precise, practical, creative, and critical thinker.<br />You have
to know how to challenge ill-formedness in linguistic structures<br />(the
Meta-Model). You have to know how to challenge the cognitive<br />distortions,
biases, and fallacies (see Executive Thinking; Thinking for<br />Humans). You
have to be able to detect and work with thinking and<br />perceiving patterns
(Meta-Programs, Figuring Out People). Is it a lot?<br />Yes, you bet it is and in
Neuro-Semantics we have lots of training programs<br />to make this a reality.
Here's to you doing your own best thinking!<br /><br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-53278864489871359882023-11-12T19:58:00.000-08:002023-11-12T19:58:06.599-08:00<p> THINKING ABOUT THINKING</p><br />WITH NLP<br /><br /> <br /><br />Isn't that a gret
title? I wish I had invited it, but alas I did not.<br />Joseph Yeager invented
it and then wrote a book by that title, Thinking<br />about Thinking with NLP
(1985). It's an excellent book -insightful, playful<br />(full of humor), and
full of practical applications. I got that book the<br />next year (1986) just as
I was entering into this field. <br /><br />"NLP is the science of thinking about
thinking." (p. viii)<br /><br />"... Think of thinking as continuous and fluid ...
choice is a convention of<br />thinking, not a given of human nature." (p.
ix)<br /><br /> <br /><br />And while it is a wonderful book, it is also an incomplete
book. In fact,<br />given what we know today, it is very incomplete! In spite of
all of the<br />good things in the book, Joseph did not even come close to the
idea of NLP<br />as a Thinking Model (Neurons #43, #44). Well, in 1985 NLP was
only<br />officially 10 years old (1975) and Meta-Programs and Sub-Modalities
were<br />only then in the process of being developed. Joseph also wrote it
years<br />before the discovery of the Meta-States Model (1994) wherein I modeled
the<br />most unique kind of thinking and consciousness that we humans
have-<br />self-reflexive consciousness.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Now as a thinking model,
NLP did not make the mistake of making "thinking"<br />dichotomous to "feeling" or
"emoting." NLP is much too holistic for that!<br />When we talk about thinking,
we include within it feeling and emoting. The<br />fundamental channels of
thinking, the sensory representational systems of<br />the VAK include both.
Generally, visual and auditory representations drive<br />the thinking part and
kinesthetics drive the feeling and emotional part.<br />This is the basic
structure of facilitating experiences using NLP. <br /><br /> <br /><br />If that
doesn't immediately make sense, or ring a bell for you, consider<br />what happens
in any and every NLP training and/or coaching. A person wants<br />to feel more
relaxed, more joyful, more confident, more curious, etc. What<br />does the NLP
trainer do? She first grounds the experience of work asking<br />VAK questions,
"How do you picture this? What tone of voice are you using?<br />And how are you
feeling in your body-your breathing, posture, muscle tone,<br />etc.?" Once this
thinking is elicited, then the NLP-er will ask the person<br />to make the
thinking features of the pictures brighter, the tone more<br />upbeat, etc. Then,
"What effects does this have on your emotions or<br />emotional
states?"<br /><br /> <br /><br />The visual and auditory qualities also drive the
kinesthetics. Sometimes<br />the kinesthetics are used to amplify or turn up the
bodily sensations. Then<br />to enrich it further, words are elicited. "What do
you say to yourself?"<br />"What could you say to yourself that would make this
experience more<br />joyful?" "What tonality would you use?"<br /><br />All of this
highlights that in NLP we think with our whole mind and body.<br />Thinking is
visual, auditory, kinesthetic (which includes smells and tastes)<br />sensory
systems. It also includes linguistics for our mental categories<br />(our
meta-representational system). NLP, as a holistic thinking model,<br />involves
no dichotomizing or polarizing of thinking and
feeling.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Neurologically, when we think not only are various
cortexes activated in the<br />brain, but neuro-pathways are activated from brain
to all of the body. All<br />of the many different nervous systems are activated
(autonomic nervous<br />system, immune system, sympathetic nervous system,
digestive nervous system,<br />etc.). That's why, taking cue from Korzybski, NLP
is as holistic and<br />systemic as you can get, hence, Neuro-Linguistic
Programming. We "program"<br />or construct strategies and experiences into our
very neurology. Then, as<br />"neurons are fired together, they wire together"
(Donald Hebb). Now the<br />program, whether it is for reading, riding a bike,
getting dressed, driving<br />a car, solving an algebra problem, etc., that
program is readily available<br />to us as a developed
resource.<br /><br /> <br /><br />As a Thinking Model, NLP specifies how such
programming works in human<br />neurology and how it is coded linguistically. We
are a neuro-linguistic and<br />neuro-semantic class of life (Alfred Korzybski).
What this means is that<br />unlike the field of Critical Thinking or the field of
Creative Thinking, NLP<br />is so much more. Again, that's why it is a
meta-discipline.<br /><br /> <br /><br />When you next add the meta-levels of thinking
to all of this-then you have<br />an even fuller picture. As you think about your
thinking, you develop<br />higher levels of consciousness. This meta-thinking
shows up as beliefs,<br />decisions, learning, understandings, conceptual models,
etc. Within each of<br />these we develop all sorts of thinking hierarchies-
belief systems,<br />hierarchy of values, increasingly more abstract
understandings of patterns<br />and the "laws" that govern a
discipline.<br /><br /> <br /><br />NLP began as a thinking model, even though the
founders didn't realize it,<br />or think about their work in that way. Today
Neuro-Semantic NLP continues<br />the original discovery by modeling the many ways
that thinking functions in<br />our mind-body system.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Why is all
of that important? Because everything human depends upon, and<br />arises from,
thinking. Thinking is the key to everything we deem important.<br />As the
ultimate cause; it is your ultimate power. Consequently, if you can<br />get to
the thinking of someone, whether a client, an expert, or yourself-you<br />can
identify the structure of pathology, excellence, challenge, etc.
and<br />therefore that person's way of functioning. You can learn it, bring
healing<br />to it if need be, and/or replicate it. That's because it is a model
of<br />thinking itself.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-7203352014749499492023-10-09T22:20:00.001-07:002023-10-09T22:20:22.674-07:00<p> WHAT NLP REALLY IS</p><br /> <br /><br />NLP, as a Communication model, is not a
therapy model. It is not a version<br />of psychotherapy. Nor is it a modeling
model, a hypnosis model, or even a<br />model for personal development
(self-actualization). So what is NLP?<br />Amazing enough, that is one of the
perennial questions that has plagued the<br />field of NLP. This is the question
to ask if you want to torture an NLP<br />trainer!<br /><br /> <br /><br />Yes, NLP speaks
to, addresses, and provides lots of guidance in each of<br />these disciplines.
These are actually the most essential applications of<br />NLP. There are many
more-parenting, leadership, managements, coaching,<br />consulting, education,
health, fitness, etc. These are so much the<br />essential applications that they
are commonly, even to this day, confused<br />with what NLP really is. That's why
some say NLP is Modeling, some say it<br />is Psychotherapy, some say it is
Hypnosis, and others say it is<br />Self-Actualization. NLP certain is each of
these in terms of applications.<br />But what is it at its core? Can we determine
that?<br /><br /> <br /><br />NLP is actually much deeper than any of these. Thinking
about it as a<br />communication model, then at its heart, it is about how we
communicate to<br />ourselves and others to create our experiences (states,
skills, knowledge).<br />As NLP identified how these communications work and the
basic communication<br />processes (mechanism), we found that it gave us the inner
hidden structure<br />of experience itself. And when you know the structure of an
experience, you<br />can model and replicate that experience.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Yet
unbeknown to most NLP trainers, writers, researchers, and teachers, NLP<br />is
actually deeper than just a Communication Model. Nor is this something<br />new
that I'm adding to NLP, it has been deeper since the beginning, but<br />hardly
anyone noticed. I did not. And I researched it for decades and<br />delved into
the NLP models going back to the original sources. Perhaps<br />that's because it
is easier and makes more sense to simply say that it is a<br />Communication
Model. People understand that. What else would you call
it?<br /><br /> <br /><br />When Bob and I packaged NLP for the two volumes of User's
Manual of the<br />Brain, we said that it is most essentially a Communication
Model. Evidence<br />of that goes to the fact that the first NLP model is "the
Meta-Model of<br />Language in Therapy" and the second model was the
Representational Model<br />that comprises our communications (including
Sub-Modalities or the cinematic<br />features of our inner movies). The third
model, the Strategies Model about<br />how the communications generates and
"programs" an experience. Fourth, the<br />Milton Model of hypnotic communication
patterns and how trance states work.<br />Fifth, the Meta-Programs model about how
people think in their<br />communications. That's a lot of evidence that NLP is a
Communication Model.<br />Yet could it be something deeper? If so, what would we
call it?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Could we call it a thinking model? What if, deeper
than all of the uses and<br />applications of NLP is thinking? Yet there's a
problem with that. Namely,<br />what is a thinking model? How do you model
thinking? Thinking itself seems<br />so primary and irreducible, what would be
its components? Perhaps that's<br />why none of us saw that NLP could be defined
as a thinking model. But let's<br />go with it for a moment. Suppose we called
NLP a thinking model? After<br />all, take each of the communication models and
let's ask, What lies within<br />and underneath each model? The answer is
Thinking. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Meta-Model of Language Linguistic
distinctions encoding how we<br />think. <br /><br />Representational
Model Sensory representations encoding sensory<br />VAK
thinking.<br /><br />Sub-Modality Model Cinematic features
framing how one is<br />thinking.<br /><br />Strategy
Model Representational steps in how a<br />thinking
format is structured.<br /><br />Milton Model
Hypnotic linguistic<br />distinctions that invite a person to construct thinking
about possibilities<br />and in terms of metaphors (metaphorical
thinking).<br /><br />Meta-Programs Model Thinking patterns that
govern ways of<br />perceiving. <br /><br />Perceptual Positions Model Thinking
patterns from different<br />perceptual positions.<br /><br />Reframing
Model Thinking patterns for framing<br />different ways
of interpreting a word, experience, or person, thinking about<br />meaning in
different way.<br /><br />Meta-States Model Reflexive thinking
patterns that<br />layer thought upon thought to generate more complex
states.<br /><br /> <br /><br />One thing this perceptive highlights is that all
'thinking' is not the same.<br />There are many different kinds and dimensions of
thinking. It also puts a<br />spotlight on the driving force inside of
communication-the quality of your<br />thinking determines the quality of your
communicating. As thinking can go<br />wrong, make mistakes, be fallacious-so can
everything that thinking<br />generates. No wonder change, and transformation of
persons and<br />organizations, require new thinking in new and different
ways.<br /><br /> <br /><br />What am I saying here? I'm saying that what NLP is most
essentially a<br />Thinking Model. When you really understand NLP, you know that
it is a way<br />of thinking, a way of rethinking, and a way to do both critical
and creative<br />thinking. With this in mind, then at the core of every change
is<br />re-thinking. It is fresh thinking and it is meta-thinking, that is,
the<br />ability to think about your thinking so that you can make sure it
is<br />accurate, specific, precise, creative, and
ecological.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Thinking has been at the core of NLP from the
beginning, but we missed it.<br />Perhaps we dismissed "thinking" as too small,
too obvious, or not<br />distinctive enough. Perhaps we wanted something more
sell-able, something<br />more commercially appealing, something that sounded more
sexy-<br />communication, change, reframing, modeling, etc.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Now as
a Thinking Model, NLP (including Meta-States) offers us nearly<br />everything we
need to build and articulate a model of thinking. And<br />unbeknown to most of
the field of NLP, that's what I've been doing in our<br />Brain Camp trainings and
in the series of books on thinking. It has been a<br />discovery long time in
coming, but it is now coming in a training near
you.<br />:)<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.<br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-15127548559549366412023-10-02T17:15:00.001-07:002023-10-02T17:15:39.658-07:00<p> "MIND" AS A VERB</p><br /> <br /><br />One of the greatest distinctions in the
Meta-Model is the linguistic<br />distinction of nominalization. When you have
one of these creatures, you<br />have a mystified noun. It is a mystery because,
since it is not a true<br />noun, it is challenging, sometimes difficult, and
sometimes utterly<br />impossible to know what to do with it. How different from
a real noun which<br />is "a person, place, or object." When you have a real
noun, you can see it<br />or hear it or touch it or taste or smell it. Examples
of real nouns- your<br />mother, your bed, your toothbrush, shoe, shirt, car,
eggs, hamburger, etc.<br /><br /> <br /><br />But then there are the false nouns. These
are verbs which have been<br />noun-ified. Take the verb "relate" and when you
nounify it, you have<br />"relationship." The verb that's hidden inside of
relationship is "to<br />relate." It is unspecified, so we have to ask more
questions: who is<br />relating to whom, relating in what way, for what purpose,
over what time<br />frame, etc.? Take motivation and what is the hidden verb
inside it? Easy.<br />First we get motive then we get move. Again, unspecified,
so who or what is<br />moving? In what direction? What is the style of the
moving, toward or away<br />from, slowly or quickly, etc.?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Many,
if not most, nominalizations are like that-it is easy to detect the<br />hidden
verb and to expose the real referent. That's good because if you<br />don't, you
will be left with a distorted mental map about yourself, others,<br />life, and/or
the world. You will have a mental map that is false-to-fact<br />and that will
trick you, even deceive you, about things. Psychologists for<br />most of the
20th century were fooled by motivation. They thought it was a<br />thing, an
object, something real, and so off they went looking for it. But<br />it is not a
thing! It does not exist as a separate entity. It describes a<br />function-the
thinking-and-feeling (meaning-making) function within a person.<br />Maslow got it
right when he identified motivation as a function of the<br />driving needs that
need to be gratified; he wrote a whole book about<br />that-Motivation and
Personality (1954/ 1970).<br /><br /> <br /><br />Now for one of the most mysterious of
nominalizations of all-"mind." We<br />certainly talk about "mind" as if it is a
thing, a real thing, an object<br />that somehow exists in our heads. There is a
whole field, Philosophy of<br />Mind, in which great "minds" theorize and
philosophize about mind. Some say<br />the mind is just the brain; some say there
is no such thing, "it is a<br />figment of your imagination." Then there are many
other definitions, all<br />striving to specify what it is. But, of course,
that's the thing, it is not<br />a thing at all!<br /><br /> <br /><br />Fortunately, we
do at times use the word "mind" as a verb. Getting on and<br />off of trains or
subways you see the words, "Mind the gap." We hear our<br />mothers say, "Now you
mind your mother and do what I tell you!" We may hear<br />our parents also say,
"Mind your brother while I go into the store," "Mind<br />your manners, you're in
church!" There are more: mind your own business,<br />mind your head, mind your
step, mind me, mind yourself, mind the goats, etc.<br />There are even
"conversational postulates: "Would you mind passing the<br />salt?" "Would you
mind closing the door?"<br /><br /> <br /><br />Now when it comes to mind as a verb,
what are we actually saying or asking?<br />To "mind the gap" is to think about
and pay attention to the gap. So with<br />"mind your mother," we know that she
means, listen to and think about what I<br />told you. "Mind" as a verb means
think, think about, pay attention, focus<br />on.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Now you know the
hidden verb inside of "mind," it is think. Yet again, we<br />have an unspecified
verb, so we have to ask more questions: Think in what<br />way, think how, think
about what, etc.? Now when it comes to thinking,<br />there are essential
thinking skills: considering, questioning, doubting,<br />detailing, and
distinguishing. There are constructive thinking skills that<br />lead to eureka
moments: inferring, organizing, creating, and synergizing<br />(systems
thinking). Then there are the advanced thinking skills: learning,<br />deciding,
discerning, reflecting, and sacrilizing (valuing). (I have<br />detailed these
thinking skills in Brain Camp I and in the forthcoming book,<br />Thinking for
Humans, 2024).<br /><br /> <br /><br />What is your "mind?" Well, since we know it is
not a thing, it must be a<br />function, and given that the hidden verb is
"think," what we refer to by the<br />word "mind" is your thinking functions.
Question: "What's on your mind?"<br />Answer: whatever you have been thinking-your
thoughts, your ideas, your<br />constructs. Question: "What's in the back of your
mind?" Answer: previous<br />thoughts that you now use as your thinking filters
or references. "What<br />does it mean when you say you must be losing your
mind? Answer: It means<br />that you are forgetting a thought or not
comprehending a thought. "Do you<br />have a good mind?" Now we are asking about
the quality of your thinking and<br />if you can think in clear and reasonable
ways.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Mind- a mystery especially when you don't know how to
de-nominalize. Mind-<br />the wonder of human ingenuity, creativity, and
innovations when you know<br />that it is your thinking and the quality of your
thinking. Mind- the result<br />of your thinking. Your mind is your own
self-creation! Given that, how's<br />your
mind?<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />L.
Michael Hall, Ph.D.<br /><br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-7974366228707667672023-09-26T04:14:00.001-07:002023-09-26T04:14:11.463-07:00<p> YOUR TALK:</p><br />YOUR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS <br /><br /> <br /><br />To assert that your
talk reveals your thinking (#40) is to identify the<br />field of study called
Psycho-Linguistics. While this field uses the<br />language of linguistics and
grammar, it is not strictly about linguistics<br />and grammar. It is about how
the way you talk reflects your inner<br />psychology. This describes the very
same phenomenon that the phrase<br />neuro-linguistics also refers to. It refers
to what your linguistics does<br />inside your neurology, how it influences the
neurons in your brain and body,<br />and how that puts you into various states.
<br /><br /> <br /><br />What does all of that mean? It means that NLP is not about
linguistics and<br />grammar per se, but rather about the effect of language
within the human<br />person. And while many people get turned off with regard to
the Meta-Model<br />of Language, NLP's first model, that is typically because the
trainer did<br />not understand it him or herself and did not know how to train
it.<br />Accordingly, in many NLP schools, the Meta-Model is mentioned and
then<br />quickly passed over thereby conveying the idea that it is not
that<br />important. But it is.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Actually, the opposite is true.
I could easily make an argument that the<br />most important model in NLP is the
Meta-Model of Language. Once upon a<br />time, Richard Bandler himself made that
argument. He said that "everything<br />that had been created in NLP was created
with the Meta-Model." How about<br />that! In fact, it was that statement in
1989 that made me question my own<br />understanding of the Meta-Model. It
challenged me because I could not<br />explain how the Meta-Model would have been
at the heart of creating<br />everything in NLP. And, I wanted to
know.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Consequently that sent me on a several year study of the
Meta-Model. It<br />also sent me to my first studies in Alfred Korzybski's
General Semantics and<br />from that, I collected seven linguistic distinctions
from Korzybski's work<br />that should have been included in the original
Meta-Model but were not. In<br />adding those, I called the result The Extended
Meta-Model. That's now in<br />the book, Communication Magic
(2001).<br /><br /> <br /><br />Now psycho-linguistics or neuro-linguistics refers to
one of the most basic<br />and essential mechanisms in human experience-how we
think and how our<br />thinking generates our "sense of reality," that is, our
model of the world.<br />To think is to use various "languages." First, we think
using the sensory<br />representational systems of seeing, hearing, feeling,
smelling, and tasting.<br />This thinking is without words. Next we add words,
that's the<br />meta-representational system and the first words are sensory-based
words.<br />Words enable you and I to create categories, classifications,
concepts, etc.<br />and these then become our thinking templates or perceptual
filters. This<br />shifts to a higher level of thinking-conceptual and evaluative
thinking.<br /><br /> <br /><br />As you do any of these kinds of thinking, you send
signals to your body how<br />to feel and what to do. In other words, this is how
you "program" yourself<br />so that you can do whatever you do. You program
yourself for how to feed<br />yourself, walk, run, ride a bike, dress yourself,
read, write, do math, use<br />a computer, etc. Your programming for how to be,
and how to function as<br />you, is a function of your neuro-linguistics and
neuro-semantics.<br /><br /> <br /><br />This means that the language you speak is an
important determinant of how<br />you think. And as you think, so you feel,
respond, speak, and behave. Your<br />linguistics in all of its multiple forms
organizes your thinking processes.<br />Even a single word can operate an
organizing structure for your thinking. <br /><br /> <br /><br />For example, if you
mis-use the word "race" to designate different ethnic<br />groups, you thereby
program yourself to see and distinguish different<br />"races." It is actually a
mis-use of the word because there is only one<br />human race on this planet. We
are all members of that one and singular<br />race. We are not different
species. If you talk about "the human race" and<br />include every single person
in that category, you have no room for racism or<br />being a racist. Then you
will be color-blind as Martin Luther King, Jr.<br />described in his "I Have a
Dream" speech. Given this, all of the non-sense<br />today about racism is a
self-generated problem that can disappear very<br />quickly when we change our
languaging. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Amazing, isn't it? Words program the mind. The
way you talk organizes what<br />we call your "personality." No wonder
Neuro-Semantics, as an upgraded<br />version of NLP, focuses so much on cleaning
up your thinking so that you can<br />speak with more clarity and precision and so
you can then live with more<br />truth and compassion.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />L.
Michael Hall, Ph.D.<br /><br />ISNS Executive Director<br /><br />738 Beaver
Lodge<br /><br />Grand Jct., CO. 81505 USA<br /><br />(970) 523-7877<br /><br /><a href="mailto:meta@acsol.net">meta@acsol.net</a> <br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-88654998795342822192023-09-05T18:01:00.001-07:002023-09-05T18:01:29.653-07:00<p> WOKE THINKING SICKNESS</p><br /> <br /><br />While the content of what is called Woke
claims to care about social<br />justice, it only cares for justice for a few, not
for everyone.<br />Originating from the "Black Lives Matter" movement, Woke
thinking lacks<br />almost any common sense. The first un-common sense thing that
came out of<br />it was the defunding the police movement. Now just a few years
later, we<br />see many of the people who jumped on that bandwagon reversing
themselves.<br />Why? Because the rate of crime has been sky-rocketing, because
mobs of<br />people rob businesses in daylight, and because the hands of police
have been<br />tied so that they fear protecting the
public<br /><br /> <br /><br />However, above and beyond the ideological contents of
Woke is Woke thinking,<br />and that's the real problem. Because Woke thinking is
driven by an<br />ideology, and as with every ideology, that thinking is
inherently biased by<br />its unspoken assumptions. Consequently Woke thinking is
not scientific, not<br />realistic, and not rational. Rather than true thinking,
it is "agenda<br />thinking." When you start with an agenda, in this case a
political agenda<br />based in Marxism and Socialism, that's why it is nearly
impossible to reason<br />with a woke thinker. Like every ideological thinking,
woke thinking doesn't<br />seek the truth, but to prostyle in order to gain
followers to the Woke cult.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Now if you use your brain well,
and if you think in the way that thinking is<br />designed to be used, then you
use it to grasp as best you can the<br />"territory" of the world. Grasping it
enables you to map it. That's what<br />thinking is-your mental mapping of what
you construe is present and how it<br />works. You do that in order to navigate
that territory.<br /><br /> <br /><br />If effective thinking puts in touch with
reality, it is the means and design<br />of science. It is the scientific
attitude. When we do science effectively,<br />we discern what is there, how it
works, how to manage it, etc. You consider<br />all sides, tests the validity of
statements, keep your hypotheses open for<br />adjustment as new information
arises, etc.<br /><br /> <br /><br />But Woke thinking does not do any of that. For
example, in biology we know<br />that there are two sexes and only two. Every
biologist knows that. There<br />are males and females and everybody either has a
penis or a vagina. That's<br />the sexual facts. For the term "gender," we
generally use it as a synonym,<br />although "gender" also carries with it the
cultural ideas of what each<br />gender is like, and how in any given culture we
raise boys and girls. But<br />today Woke thinking presents a mental map that in
no way relates to reality.<br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />Now regarding these facts, people
within every culture develops views about<br />masculinity and femininity-beliefs,
understandings, assumptions, etc. These<br />views make up each person's
psychology about males and females as concepts.<br />When these are framed in
extreme opposition to each other, while there may<br />be clarity about male and
female roles in a culture, there's usually also<br />unnecessary conflict between
the sexes. Then men aren't allowed to cry, to<br />be tender, to nurture, to
admit weakness, etc. Then women are not allowed<br />ot be angry, speak up for
themselves, establish firm boundaries, say no,<br />etc. Of course, these
"problems" are problems of our framing and especially<br />cultural framing, not
of reality.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Sexual and gender identities are functions of
framing and meaning-making.<br />As an identity, what you think about being male
or female depends on your<br />beliefs, understandings, permitting, forbidding,
framing, etc. If you are a<br />biological male and "feel like a woman" that's a
psychological issue, not a<br />biological one. If you're a biological female and
"feel like a man" your<br />psychology is off. Your biology is a given, you are
either male or female.<br />If you have a problem with that, the problem lies not
in your biology but in<br />your mind and emotions. So trying to "solve" a
psychological problem<br />biologically is a living "outside-in" approach, and
will not be very<br />satisfactory. And as such, it is a superficial and shallow
"solution." <br /><br /> <br /><br />While it is certainly possible to change one's
sexual features, something<br />accomplished by surgery, hormone therapy, etc.,
chopping off breasts and<br />penises and reconstructing sexual parts is
irreversible. Because of that,<br />as a psychologist, I say that no child,
adolescent, or even young adult<br />ought to ever make that choice. After all,
any decision that is<br />irreversible ought to be reserved for a time in life
after the brain has<br />full matured -which is in the
mid-30s.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />And once a biological man has made all of the
changes to become a woman, he<br />should never be allowed to compete in women's
sports. Let them invent some<br />transgender league of their own. Women have
fought long and hard for their<br />own leagues and for respect of their sports.
That should not be thrown away<br />to men who want to be women. Everybody knows
that gives them an unfair<br />advantage and, in the long run, will destroy
women's sports.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Now when you try to reason with a Woke thinker,
to have a rational<br />conversation, you'll discover the sickness of their agenda
thinking. Woke<br />thinking seeks to shut up anyone who disagrees. Woke
thinking bars<br />conservatives from college campuses and disserters from
boardrooms. Why?<br />Because the Woke thinker has a "religion" to promote. That
person will<br />argue by calling names, using labels ("racists" is their
favorite),<br />generalizations, emotionally associating you with extreme
examples-forms of<br />cognitive distortions and fallacies. Their use of language
itself is sick,<br />it is the doublespeak that Orwell described in his novel,
1984.<br /><br /> <br /><br />As Neuro-Semanticists, we think about how people think
because as a person<br />thinks, so one reasons, emotes, communicates, acts, etc.
The inner game of<br />thinking governs all of the outer games of acting and
relating. That's why<br />we have to address thinking
first.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />L. Michael Hall,
Ph.D., Executive Director <br /><br />Neuro-Semantics <br /><br />738 Beaver
Lodge<br /><br />Grand Jct., CO. 81505 USA<br /><br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-34378249870724431362023-08-28T16:49:00.003-07:002023-08-28T16:49:42.356-07:00<p> DO YOU HAVE A GOOD MIND?</p><br /> <br /><br />To succeed at anything-business,
relationships, politics, health, fitness-<br />requires that you have a good
mind. That's because when you have a good<br />mind, you can figure what is going
on, understand and accept reality, and<br />then generate good ideas about what to
do. You can do that because you have<br />learned a basic human skill-how to
think effectively. That's what gives you<br />a good
mind.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Imagine the opposite. Imagine a poor thinker. That
person will have<br />troubles defining the current situation, figuring out what
to do, accessing<br />resources, and thinking through the consequences. When
someone is a poor<br />thinker, he falls back on the childish thinking patterns of
the cognitive<br />distortions. She over-generalizes, does either-or thinking,
personalizes,<br />emotionalizes, blames, has tunnel-vision, etc. No wonder the
poor thinker<br />cannot effectively deal with reality and has troubles getting
along with<br />people!<br /><br /> <br /><br />Effective thinking enables you to first of
all comprehend the current<br />reality so you know what you are dealing with. In
effective thinking you<br />begin by openly considering all of the factors and
variables before you<br />jump-to-conclusions. Once you effectively define,
detail, and distinguish<br />what is, then you look for effective solutions and
resources. You establish<br />a well-formed outcome, problem, solution, and
innovation. This is what it<br />means to have a good mind-a mind that enables
you to figure things out and<br />create actionable plans for taking productive
action. <br /><br /> <br /><br />In this sense, no one is born with "a good mind." A
good mind is developed.<br />If you have a good mind today, it is because you have
developed it. You<br />have learned how to think accurately, precisely,
critically, creatively, and<br />productively. That doesn't happen without effort
and direction. That<br />doesn't happen without the discipline of learning how to
use your brain and<br />"run your own brain." Even basic school education does
not guarantee that.<br />And why not? Because even to this day, schools teach
kids what to think,<br />they do not teach kids how to
think.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Given that, who teaches people how to think? That's a
great question and<br />the answer is "Generally, no one." Most people who have
learned how to<br />effectively think have learned it on their own. And they
usually learned it<br />after some debacle where what they had learned generated
more problems and<br />misery than help. So they sat down to learn how to learn
and how to think.<br />That's when they went meta to their thinking and learning
and discovered<br />meta-thinking and meta-learning.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Who teaches
how to learn? NLP does, although mostly in an indirect way. I<br />mostly
learned how to think when I learned NLP. It was one of the<br />unexpected and
unintended consequences of learning NLP. That's when I<br />learned that the
first level of thinking begins with the sensory-based<br />information I picture
in my mind. I then learned that language is the<br />meta-representation system
-a system about the sensory-systems. Then in<br />Neuro-Semantics we articulated
that there are many more higher or<br />meta-levels of "thinking" coded as
beliefs, decisions, permissions,<br />knowledge, concepts, etc. So today, the
people who teach thinking are most<br />the Neuro-Semantic trainers and sometimes,
some NLP trainers.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Teach a person how to think and how to
effectively manage one's thinking<br />powers, and that's how you create a good
mind which can generate good ideas<br />that can change one's life and/or change
the world. Yet in reality, that is<br />just the beginning. Success and
productivity certainly begin with people<br />who are good thinkers who produce
good ideas, but that is not enough. It is<br />a great start, but only a
beginning. We also need good strategies-a<br />specific and workable strategy
that will achieve a specific objective.<br />That's because without effective
strategies, you will not be able to<br />implement your good ideas. A good
strategy answers the question, What<br />specifically will you do and how will you
do it?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Thinking strategically means that you begin with a
well-formed objective and<br />then think about the processes required for making
that objective real. A<br />wonder goal without the ability to plan intelligently
is not sufficient.<br />The problem with not knowing how, that is, being ignorant
of the how, your<br />brain will fill in your ignorance. David Dunning explains
how this works: <br /><br />"An ignorant mind is precisely not a spotless, empty
vessel, but one that's<br />filled with the clutter of irrelevant or misleading
life experiences,<br />theories, facts, intuitions, strategies, algorithms,
heuristics, metaphors,<br />and hunches that regrettably have the look and feel of
useful and accurate<br />knowledge. This clutter is an unfortunate by-product of
one of our greatest<br />strengths as a species. We are unbridled pattern
recognizers and profligate<br />theorizers. Often, our theories are good enough
to get us through the day,<br />or at least to an age when we can procreate. But
our genius for creative<br />storytelling, combined with our inability to detect
our own ignorance, can<br />sometimes lead to situations that are embarrassing,
unfortunat e, or<br />downright dangerous- especially in a technologically
advanced, complex<br />democratic society that occasionally invests mistaken
popular beliefs with<br />immense destructive power."<br /><br /> <br /><br />If you want
a good mind, then first and foremost, you need to learn how to<br />truly think.
That means to not assume that "good thinking is natural and<br />inevitable" or
that "you don't have to learn how to think to be an effective<br />thinker." Good
thinking builds up a good mind; they go hand in hand. The<br />problem is that
there are many forms of non-thinking- pseudo-experiences<br />that masquerades as
thinking. In Brain Camp I we identify seven of these<br />masquerades of the real
thing as a way to stay alert. Then we cover the 14<br />essential thinking
skills.<br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.<br /><br />ISNS Executive Director<br /><br />738 Beaver
Lodge<br /><br />Grand Jct., CO. 81505 USA<br /><br />(970) 523-7877<br /><br /><a href="mailto:drhall@acsol.net">drhall@acsol.net</a> <br /></div>Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-44330623834847429042023-08-14T21:46:00.001-07:002023-08-14T21:46:41.072-07:00<p> "PURPOSEFUL THINKING"</p><br />Well, Almost ... Actually Just VAK Thinking,
Again<br /><br /> <br /><br />I began studying Critical Thinking in 2015. In the
beginning I<br />collaborated with one of our Neuro-Semantic trainers. After he
dropped out,<br />I created the trainings that are now called Brain Camp I, II,
and III.<br />After three years of extensive reading and studying in that field, I
wrote<br />the book, Executive Thinking (2018) having also written scores of
articles<br />on "thinking." Just recently I discovered that Richard Bandler
began<br />thinking somewhat along the same line after that. I discovered that
when I<br />got his book "Thinking on Purpose" (2019). Hearing some promotion for
it, I<br />thought that maybe it mighty be further development of the mysterious
and<br />wonder-fill phenomenon of "thinking." But, sadly, it did
not.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />In fact, throughout the entire book, thinking is simply
refers to as<br />VAK-thinking, the thinking that works with into the components
of your<br />movie-mind. That's all. It is the 1970s NLP model of thinking as
only what<br />we do at the primary level. Bandler has not even included the
levels of<br />thinking that Bateson and Dilts developed, or the meta-levels of
thinking<br />that I developed with Meta-States. It is all primary level
thinking, and<br />therefore the one and only "tool" is changing the qualities of
your<br />pictures, sounds, and/or sensations (to wit,
sub-modalities).<br /><br /> <br /><br />If you have read NLP books by Bandler, there's
nothing new in this one.<br />Like all of the other books, this one is exclusively
focused on the<br />modalities and sub-modalities. It is about good thoughts and
bad thoughts<br />(p. 69). It is about adding pleasure to whatever you do. When
it comes to<br />beliefs-still failing to recognize that beliefs are meta-level
phenomenon,<br />he still uses sub-modalities to alter them, which of course, does
not work<br />(97). He thinks of them as images to alter. He also thinks that
decisions<br />are "images." "...and notice the image of that good decision"
(115). Yet<br />these meta-level abstractions are not pictures, they are
concepts.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Meta-Stating: Now there is meta-stating in the book,
but it is unrecognized.<br />He talks about seeing a belief (which presupposes a
belief is an image<br />rather than a sentence!) And then saying to yourself with
absolute<br />conviction, "It is stupid." That's applying the state of
"stupidity" to a<br />belief (p. 96). He also does that with "This is smart" (p.
98). He notes<br />that "confidence is not just a state." It's a modifier, but
then he fails<br />to realize that because you can be confident about being happy,
about being<br />hired, about not being hired, etc., it is a meta-state
(163).<br /><br /> <br /><br />The following reveals the meta-state of knowing about a
craving. "Your<br />feelings don't force you to act. Knowing you crave something
should be<br />enough to tell you to not do it." (p. 201). The knowing is higher
to and<br />about the craving and therefore leads to a higher understanding. Then
there<br />is this: "As soon as you laugh at being afraid of something and you're
fed<br />up with being afraid of going up in an escalator..." (p. 242). These
are<br />meta-states: laugh at fear; fed up about fear. But, of course, he
doesn't<br />know that.<br /><br />There are inspiring statements about thinking and
learning:<br /><br />"We have to teach people how to be learning machines; this
requires them<br />become problem solvers." (p. 16)<br /><br />"If you just think, you
can think yourself into problems. It's really<br />easy." (p. 30)<br /><br />"The
biggest inoculation against our mental problems is a sense of humor."<br />(p.
34)<br /><br />"You forgot that the reason you have a brain is so you would have
your own<br />thoughts, not someone else's." (p. 42)<br /><br /> <br /><br />There are
also some nice reframing which, of course, occur at a level meta<br />to the
primary level. I like this one: "When you feel bad exercising, the<br />pain of
exercising is weakness disappearing." (p. 104). And this one:<br />"Phones have
become like pacifiers now." (p. 158)<br /><br /> <br /><br />About acceptance, he got
that all wrong. "... If you accept how you are,<br />you are committing to your
stupidity." (p. 242). Here he criticizes those<br />in the Human Potential
Movement for urging "accept yourself the way you<br />are." But acceptance does
not mean condoning or resignation. Not at all!<br />No one in the Human Potential
Movement ever said that.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Bottom line- If you know NLP, you will
not learn very much about thinking in<br />this book. You will mostly get a good
review of Bandler's take on NLP, and<br />especially how we think in the
sensory-systems and if you change the<br />cinematic features (sub-modalities) of
the images, sounds, and sensations<br />that you use-you will change your
thinking.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Thinking on Purpose could have been a breakthrough
book. After all,<br />purposeful thinking itself describes a meta-state. If
Richard Bandler had<br />read and understood the Appendix on Meta-States in The
Spirit of NLP (1996),<br />he would have known that. He could have then
identified the higher level<br />thinking which is involved at the
meta-levels.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.<br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-73626352138865899782023-08-06T22:50:00.000-07:002023-08-06T22:50:05.931-07:00<p> SO YOU THINK YOU "DESERVE"</p><br />SOMETHING?!<br /><br /> <br /><br />In these days of
social media we hear a lot of people asserting that they<br />deserve various
things- better salary, an opportunity, recognition, etc.<br />Many people march
and protest demanding something that they think they<br />deserve. But do they?
What do you deserve? It seems like a simple and an<br />innocent question. It is
not. The way the word deserve is thrown around<br />today, and the way that
question to presented today, makes it semantically<br />loaded and not in a good
way. Look up "deserve" in the dictionary and you<br />will discover that the word
means:<br /><br />"to earn by service; to be worthy of (something due, either good
or evil); <br /><br />to merit; to be entitled to;" "worthy of reward, award or
praise."<br /><br />"a reward for what you do, to merit what you received."
<br /><br />"to have earned as a right by one's actions." <br /><br />Examples: "the
referee deserves a pat on the back for his bravery."<br />"People who park like
that deserve to be towed away." The laborer deserves<br />his wages; a work of
value deserves praise. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Yet while the word deserve refers to
earning and meriting something, today<br />it seems to be mostly used in the sense
of unconditional entitlement. When<br />used properly, it is a perfectly good
word; when used improperly it is a<br />cognitive distortion. It becomes a
should. "I deserve..." becomes a demand<br />for a reward without doing anything
to earn or merit the reward. Yet when<br />used this way, it becomes an injustice
whine demanding that the world give<br />whatever the person
wants.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Advertisers use deserve to sell things. "You deserve a
break today." "You<br />deserve Miller's Light Beer." "You deserve to drive the
best." These ads<br />imply that you have the right to demand what you deserve
and spend to get<br />what you deserve. When politicians use the word deserve
they seek to raise<br />your dissatisfaction. They imply, "Elect me and I will
give you the things<br />that you deserve!" "You deserve free health care." "You
deserve a four-day<br />work-week." "You deserve more weeks of vacation."
<br /><br /> <br /><br />In spite of all this misuse, let's ask the central question
that immediately<br />impacts our lives: What do you actually deserve? The answer
is nothing,<br />unless you do something! If deserve refers to earning and
meriting, then to<br />deserve, you have to earn it. You have done something that
merits and<br />warrants that you get it. The US constitute and Bill of Rights
speaks about<br />"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The government
was instituted<br />to protect these rights. But they are not automatic. You
still have to<br />earn them! For life, you have to take care of yourself and not
do yourself<br />harm. For liberty you get to exercise your freedoms and not
forfeit them by<br />violating the law and losing your liberty. For pursuit of
happiness, you<br />have is learn how to be happy, adjust your attitude, and
develop your<br />skills. Do you deserve to be happy? No, not automatically.
You deserve it<br />if you do what's required to attain it.<br /><br />Do you deserve
respect? Not necessarily. If you say to someone, "I deserve<br />your
respect..." you are making a request, perhaps a demand. Question: Have<br />you
demonstrated respect to that person? If not, then it does not sound<br />like you
have earned that person's respect. Saying you deserve respect<br />sounds like a
should. Does the relationship-the way each are relating-<br />establish that
expectation? Or is it an unrealistic expectation?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Now in an
entitlement society, many are mis-using this word. They think<br />they deserve
all kinds of things because they want them. It is as if they<br />think, "If I
want something, I should have, therefore I deserve, and<br />therefore I can
expect to get it." They then make demands on life, on the<br />world, on
government, on employers, on other people. "My wants as<br />expectations are
your responsibilities." Of course, what that philosophy<br />generates is
conflict, disagreement and disappointment.<br /><br /> <br /><br />The truth is neither
you nor I deserve anything unless we do something that<br />earns or merits the
reward that we want. The next time someone says, "I<br />deserve X," ask, "And
what have you done to deserve X?" "How have you<br />earned or merited X?"
<br /><br /> <br /><br />An extreme example of this non-sense is currently going on by
those in the<br />BLM movement. They have decided that they deserve reparations
for the<br />injustice done to their ancestors five generations back. They
themselves<br />were not mistreated. No one did injustice to them. In fact they
live in a<br />free society where they could achieve "the American dream," if they
put<br />their mind, heart and body to it. Injustice was done perhaps five or
ten<br />generations ago. Someone (usually their tribal chiefs) sold their
ancestors<br />into slavery to those who back in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries
were<br />engaged in slave trade. But they now think that they deserve
reparations.<br />Question: What have you done that earns that recommence? The
truth<br />is-nothing. They don't deserve reparations at
all.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Deserve is a perfectly good word when used about earning or
meriting a<br />reward. But used as a should, an expectation, a demand simply
because you<br />want it-the word becomes a sneaky cognitive distortion. It
becomes a form<br />of pseudo-reasoning, a way to throw a tantrum and try to get
what you<br />actually do not deserve. It becomes a "guilt trip" for those who
don't<br />know what the word actually
means.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />L.
Michael Hall, Ph.D.<br /><br />ISNS Executive Director<br /><br />P.O. Box 8<br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-37153108980580743302023-07-19T20:34:00.001-07:002023-07-19T20:34:56.373-07:00<p> <b style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 20pt;">HOW CAN I BECOME</span></b></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: 20pt;">TRULY COMPETENT?</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Competence is
everything!</span></i><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Well, almost everything. It is certainly why, in
Neuro-Semantics, we train, coach, consult, write, run practice groups, hold
conferences, etc. We do so in order to enable ourselves and others to become
competent at a whole variety of activities. From self-management to parenting,
to wealth creation, to leadership, to health and wellness, to eating right, to
sleeping soundly, etc., <i>competence is our objective. </i>We want people to
become self-determining and have the self-efficacy to be competent in the things
that they value.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When I say that competence is
everything, I’m thinking about the following applications. <i>Competence is the
foundation of confidence. </i>To be competent is to be confident and just about
everybody wants that—who doesn’t want to <i>feel confident </i>in what you do
and how you live? Consider the opposite: Confidence without competence means
you are fooling yourself and trying to con others into thinking you have skills
and you can do what you cannot do. The only way to feel truly and fully
confident is to become competent. But that’s actually a lot harder and more
complicated than most people image.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Competence is the foundation
for expertise. </span></i><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> Let’s say that you want
to become an expert. What’s required for that? Basically, first develop your
basic competence, then add 10 years (or 10,000 hours) of deliberate practice,
and then you will develop expertise. This is the finding of Anders Ericcson in
his longitudinal studies on expertise. This also highlights that <i>competence
is much more than merely having some skills. </i>Yes, competence requires
skills and is built upon skill development. Yet, as noted in the first article,
you could have some skills and still not be competent.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Competence is the foundation
for self-trust. </span></i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Once you develop a
skill, any skill, does not mean that you will always be able to demonstrate that
skill. Skill competence comes and goes. They depend on how you’re feeling, the
sleep you got the night before, how things are going in your life, etc.
Competence is a wavy line—up and down, on and off, good days and bad days. But
once you take the skill to the level of competence, you develop a basic
<i>consistency </i>that gives you much more control over the skill.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Competence is the foundation
for self-efficacy, </span></i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">which is the
foundation for entrepreneurship, and just about everything else, wealth
creation, risk taking, leadership, management, resilience, and the list goes on
and on. I hope the point is made— <i>because competency is just about
everything in our lives, go for it! </i>Aim to become competent. Don’t be
satisfied with being mediocre or just getting by.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Now for the
How</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Because the <i>skills</i> which
are required for competence have to be developed one by one, <i>you are going to
need a lot of patience. </i>That means giving up your impatience. The
impatient who want to become competent over-night or in a weekend course are
those who will never become competent. Your skills will inevitably be on and
off as you go through the learning process. It is the nature of the beast.
Why? Because you are moving your conceptual knowledge into your neurology. And
that integration process takes time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Along with patience, you are
going to need <i>a powerful robust attitude toward mistakes and error messages.
</i>That’s because you accelerate your learning process via the feedback
process. In other words, you have to be open to the error feedback messages.
If you make the fatal mistake of confusing your self (your ego, your worth as a
person) with what you <i>do, your behavior,</i> you will not learn very well and
it will take you a lot longer to become competent. So, release your ego!
Separate person from behavior. Stop making that fatal error. What you are
<i>doing </i>is just that— doing, behavior.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Next, <i>practice one piece at
a time.</i> Stop trying to do the whole competency or even the whole skill— set
your sights on the sub-skills. Deliberately focus your practice on each one so
that your cells fire together and you create a neural pattern in your
neurology. Once you do that, you will develop a consistency that you can
trust. This is the pathway to competency. Every manual that we have in
Neuro-Semantics has been developed specifically for this. For whatever
competency you want, open up your manual, find the sub-skills and practice them
over and over and over. That’s the key.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Keep yourself inspired
</span></i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">and therefore motivated by setting your
intention on developing the competency. Give yourself a <i>great big why</i>
and then <i>meta-detail</i> everything you do in your deliberate practice with
the big why. Refresh your <i>why</i> everyday you do your practice. As you do,
forget the results. That’s right! Forget the results, they will follow if you
do the process. So focus entirely and exclusively on the process. And what is
the process? <i>Deliberately practicing the
sub-skills!</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;">META-COACH
NEWS<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The special book deal
continues, most Neuro-Semantic books for $10, Postal Box holds 10, shipping $100
for the box. In the USA, the shipping only $15. Write to me at <a href="mailto:meta@acsol.net">meta@acsol.net</a>. <b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></b></p><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" /></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ISNS Executive Director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">P.O. Box 8<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Clifton Colorado 81520 USA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(970) 523-7877<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:drhall@acsol.net">drhall@acsol.net</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-79603919286259535412023-07-13T17:59:00.001-07:002023-07-13T17:59:35.185-07:00<p> NLP PATTERNS:</p><br />MODELS FOR THINKING<br /><br /> <br /><br />While I had studied
numerous psychologies for many years, it was not until I<br />learned NLP that I
was exposed to the idea of patterns and running patterns.<br />Nor was it that
other psychotherapies didn't have specific processes to use<br />and to follow.
They did. It was more the case that those processes were<br />looser in form,
more general in approach, entailing a larger overview of<br />this process. NLP
patterns were different. They offer a protocol for how to<br />achieve a specific
goal. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Learning NLP, in fact, is to a great extent, learning
patterns. It is<br />learning the precise steps of the pattern, the purpose of
each pattern, the<br />elicitation question for each given pattern, the processes
of the pattern,<br />and how to think about a pattern. When you learn NLP, you
learn the Circle<br />of Excellence, the Swish pattern, Six-Step Reframing,
Setting Anchors,<br />Collapsing Anchors, and on and on. Each pattern has a
specific set of steps<br />similar to a recipe. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Further, each
pattern is generally a strategy for how to do a specific thing<br />and sometimes
the name of the pattern names that specific thing- Decision<br />Destroyer, Change
Personal History, Movie Rewind. And most of the patterns<br />arose from getting
the strategy for doing a particular thing from one or<br />more persons who were
already skillfully competent.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Ten years after I learned NLP, I
had the audacity to gather all of the NLP<br />patterns that I could find in all
of the books and manuals which I had read.<br />I then put 77 of them into a
single source, The Sourcebook of Magic, Volume<br />I (1997). That was the first
book of its kind. In doing so, I separated<br />out the most basic NLP patterns
like getting rapport, anchoring, state<br />accessing, ecology check, etc. since
these processes are used inside of<br />every pattern.<br /><br /> <br /><br />What are
these patterns? They are essentially thinking patterns. If you<br />follow the
strategy steps in a pattern you will essentially learn to think<br />in a specific
way to achieve a specific outcome. You will think in a way<br />that will create
a specific resource or solve a specific problem. I didn't<br />know it at the
time, but each pattern gave me a new or different way to<br />thinking about a
given subject or experience. That's actually pretty<br />amazing! In learning
NLP, you learn to think more precisely and accurately.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Consider
what happens when you learn the sensory representation systems.<br />You learn
that you think visually, auditorially, and kinesthetically, and<br />also using
your sense of smell and taste. For the majority of people, this<br />is both
obvious and a moment of self-discovery. It was for me. I knew I<br />thought
visually, but had no idea that my primary rep. system was<br />kinesthetic. For
me, that explained a lot. Later, when I discovered that I<br />actually could
think auditorially-and that opened up a whole new world for<br />me. Previously
(well, 16 years earlier) a music teacher told me I was tone<br />deaf; as it
turned out, I was not. It was the case that I had not learned<br />to use my
auditory system. That's all.<br /><br />Consider what happens when you follow the
steps of the Movie Rewind pattern.<br />If you follow the steps, you learn to use
your thinking potentials and<br />skills in such a way that you recode the way you
think. Now your old<br />thinking code no longer forces you to re-experience a
traumatic experience.<br />You learn to think objectively-and just witnesses fact
without your old<br />interpretations inducing a re-traumatization. In this way,
you take the<br />emotional charge out of the way you remember things. Now that's
quite a<br />learning! And all you have to do is to follow the steps of the
pattern. Do<br />it enough times until this new way of thinking starts to
habituate giving<br />you another choice.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Perceived in this way,
NLP is most essentially a thinking and a re-thinking<br />model. It works its
"magic" psychologically by recoding your thinking.<br />This is especially obvious
with the Meta-Model. Here you learn to recognize<br />a linguistic cue (a word or
phrase) that is ill-formed and immediately<br />transforms it into a well-formed
one. If a word or statement programs you<br />to feel miserable, you catch it
before it performs that kind of an<br />induction. You transform it at the
linguistic level.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Yes NLP is a Communication Model. That's how
we have thought about it from<br />the beginning -a model about how communication
works. Within NLP is the<br />"Meta-Model of Language in Therapy." That's what
it was originally called.<br />Also within it is the Milton Model of Hypnotic
Language. And yes, deeper<br />still to communication is thinking. Thinking that
communicates with<br />precision and specificity as well as thinking that induces
trance states for<br />all sorts of personal resources.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Now you
know why we in Neuro-Semantics have been deepening the essential<br />core of NLP,
the core that is within and behind all of the models, all of<br />the patterns,
and all of the transformational tools. You know why we have<br />established all
three of The Brain Camps.<br /><br /> Brain Camp I: Thinking for
Humans.<br /><br /> Brain Camp II: Learning Excellence<br /><br />
Brain Camp III: Wise Executive Decisions<br /><br /> <br /><br />You also now know why I
have been writing numerous books about thinking:<br /><br /> Executive
Thinking (2018)<br /><br /> Thinking as a Modeler
(2018)<br /><br /> Executive Learning (2018)<br /><br /> Executive
Learning (2019)<br /><br /> Humorous Thinking (2021)<br /><br />
Metaphorical Thinking (2022)<br /><br /> Executive Decisions
(2022)<br /><br /> Executive Wisdom (2022)<br /><br /> Predictive
Thinking (2022) <br /><br /> <br /><br />Amazingly, the entire field of Critical
Thinking does not know that NLP is a<br />thinking model let alone the best
critical thinking tool anywhere. That's<br />why I wrote Executive Thinking
(2018)-to introduce the Meta-Model as the<br />best tool for critical thinking.
But there's more. NLP is so much more-<br />which will be the subject of the next
Neurons article.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />L. Michael Hall,
Ph.D.<br /><br />ISNS Executive Director<br /><br />P.O. Box 8<br /><br />Clifton Colorado
81520 USA<br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-30852496487019442232023-07-05T03:28:00.001-07:002023-07-05T03:28:36.928-07:00<p> <b style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 20pt;">REALITY FACING SECURITY</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The phrase “secure enough to
face reality” refers to the ability to know within yourself that you are <i>okay
as a person</i> and that you are <i>capable of handling</i> the challenges of
life. Are you that secure? If you have these two personal and internal
resources, then you will be able to face reality without falling apart or
getting into a highly reactive state. That’s what happens when a person does
not have sufficient ego-strength to face reality. With this inner security,
then the external challenges will <i>not </i>question you as a person (your
worth or dignity) or overwhelm your ability to cope with life.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Knowing your unconditional
value and having developed coping abilities—now you can <i>face reality </i>for
what it is and take effective actions to deal with things. Now you can
<i>accept </i>life’s challenges. <i>Acceptance </i>is what indicates that there
is sufficient internal security to face reality. Conversely, rejection of life
and its challenges actually makes it impossible to deal with life. When you
<i>reject</i> what is, you are fighting reality itself and as long as you are in
a fight with reality, you are expending your energy, thought, creativity,
problem-solving skills, etc,. in a realm that is self-defeating. Why? Because
reality is <i>what it is.</i> No matter how much you dislike it, hate it, wish
it would be different, <i>it is what it is.</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">If a loved one has died, then a
person you have loved has passed on and is no longer alive. If your house was
destroyed in a hurricane, then the house is gone. If you get a diagnosis of
cancer, that is what you now have to deal with. And this is where <i>the magic
of acceptance</i> enables you to cope and move forward in life. You don’t have
to like the situation to accept it. You only have to acknowledge it. This
“acceptance” is not the same as resignation—that is completely different. Nor
does it even suggest condoning the situation. <i>Acceptance is an
acknowledgment of what is. </i>And that makes it the beginning place for
healing and resilience.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">All of the previous stages of
grief that Kubler-Ross identified in her classic study on grief —denial, anger,
bargaining, and depression are actually unnecessary for grief resolution. You
will only experience these to the degree that you don’t <i>accept </i>life and
its challenges for what they are. When you accept, you don’t have to deny,
rage, bargain, or depress. Yet with acceptance, these become unnecessary. [They
also become a waste of your time and energy.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What does it take to face
reality? I’d recommend that you begin with unconditional self-esteem and a set
of coping skills. After that, you will need a healthy dose of
<i>acceptance.</i> But even without the first two, you could start with
acceptance. Acceptance can be the starting point for facing reality. That’s
because when you accept yourself, your skills, your powers, your situation,
etc., your acceptance ends the fight. It ends the inward fight against
yourself, your history, things from your childhood, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Acceptance is powerful for many
reasons. As a change principle: <i>You can’t change what you don’t accept.</i>
So acceptance begins the change process. Also, you can’t face what you don’t
accept.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What drives the pre-grief
stages of a loss (e.g., denial, anger, bargaining, and depression) are cognitive
distortions. These arise when a person exaggerates a loss, personalizes it,
emotionalizes, awfulizes, develops a tunnel vision about it, etc. To
experience <i>security inside—out</i>, begin by welcoming and embracing reality
as that which is. Acknowledge it. The paradox is that when you begin with this
kind of acceptance, all of the internal fighting against what’s real ends, and
you can focus on coping. Now you’re ready to do some high quality
problem-solving.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;">META-COACHING
NEWS<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12pt;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">With this blog, we welcome
another 20 or so new Meta-Coaches who have just graduated from ACMC in Kaula
Lumpur. The team in Malaysia were very gracious hosts and worked overtime to
deal with the challenges that arose with the hotel. This was the first ACMC in
some 10 years in Malaysia so it was as if beginning for the first time. Our
hope is that the new Meta-Coaches will become the Community there and do such
quality coaching that it will spread the word. Then the trainers will keep busy
training NLP as well as Modules I and II. <b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" /></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ISNS Executive Director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">P.O. Box 8<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Clifton Colorado 81520 USA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(970) 523-7877</p>Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-26268070147965794862023-06-24T21:22:00.000-07:002023-06-24T21:22:36.416-07:00<p> WHEN FACTS DICTATE VALUES</p><br /> <br /><br />"This is an example of truth dictating
what must be done, of the is<br />dictating the ought."<br /><br />Abraham Maslow
(1971, p. 117)<br /><br /> <br /><br />When you and I talk about values we generally
talk about things that we<br />value, we deem important, that we think it would
good for us and others.<br />But sometimes, just sometimes, we slip from a
desired-value or a fact to an<br />ought-value.<br /><br />"You know, you ought to
find a job."<br /><br />"You ought to treat your wife and kids better."<br /><br />"You
ought to exercise more and lose some weight."<br /><br />"You ought to communicate
more if you're going to be a leader."<br /><br /> <br /><br />Sometimes we treat facts
(what is) as if they are values (what ought to be).<br />Is that possible? Is it
possible that a fact can prescribe a value? Maslow<br />thought they
could.<br /><br />"Where knowledge brings certainty of decision, action, choice and
what to<br />do, and therefore, strength of arm. This is very much like the
situation<br />with a surgeon or dentist. The surgeon opening up the abdomen and
finding<br />an inflamed appendix knows that it had better be cut out because if
it<br />bursts it will kill the person. This is an example of truth dictating
what<br />must be done, of the is dictating the ought."<br /><br /> <br /><br />>From
that Maslow said that he thought "the clear perception of value is in<br />part a
consequence of the clear perception of facts." Then he noted,<br />"perhaps they
may even be the same thing." Pretty amazing! Could they be<br />the same thing?
How could they be the same thing? When you perceive the<br />Being-values, you
are more likely to perceive the intrinsic nature of a<br />person or thing. This
occurs for people who are self-actualizing. This<br />seems to be "a perception
of the deeper facticity" of things and, "at the<br />same time, of the oughtiness
of the object."<br /><br />"Oughtness is an intrinsic aspect of deeply perceived
facticity; it is<br />itself a fact to be perceived." (Ibid. p.
118)<br /><br /> <br /><br />All of this led him to then talk about the demand character
of a fact.<br />Sometimes, some facts carry with them a requiredness, that is, a
built-in<br />request for action. Yet who are the people who are able to see
that?<br />Maslow said those who have moved from the D-needs to the B-needs.
Those who<br />are living the value-life and seeking the being-values. Those are
the<br />healthier people who are more perceptive and who are less ought-blind.
What<br />this means is that via facts, they can perceive what the facts
require-the<br />values that they imply.<br /><br />"They can therefore permit
themselves ...to be guided by the facts-they will<br />have less trouble with all
value decisions that rest in the nature of<br />reality."<br /><br /> <br /><br />A
wonderful example of this is the process of carving a turkey.<br /><br />"Carving a
turkey is made easier by the knowledge of where the joints are,<br />how to handle
the knife and fork-that is, by possessing full knowledge of<br />the facts of the
situation. If the facts are fully known, they will guide<br />us and tell us what
to do. But what is also implied here is that the facts<br />are very soft-spoken
and that it is difficult to perceive them. In order to<br />be able to hear the
fact-voices it is necessary to be very quiet, to listen<br />very receptively.
That is, if we wish to permit the facts to tell us their<br />oughtiness, we must
learn to listen to them... silently, hushed, quietly,<br />fully listening,
non-interfering, receptive, patient, respectful of the<br />matter-in-hand,
courteous to the matter-in-hand."<br /><br /> <br /><br />Compare all of that to those
who seem to be lost in today's world in terms<br />of values and ethics. What's
wrong with them? Could it be that they are<br />not willing to listen to the
facts-the facts of life, of human nature, of<br />economics, of relationships,
etc. and let the facts dictate what they ought<br />to do and value? If a person
is blind to future possibilities, change,<br />personal development, unleashing
their potentials-he will strive for a<br />status quo in "what is." Yet "true
freedom consists of accepting and loving<br />the inevitable, the nature of
reality." (Ibid. p. 119)<br /><br /> <br /><br />The bottom line is that sometimes facts
can dictate values. Yet this<br />doesn't occur to everyone or at all times. It
seems to occur to those who<br />have released their biases and cognitive
distortions so that they can "hear"<br />what a fact is suggesting. It happens to
those who live the value-life of<br />the being-values and who have learned to
become
ought-aware.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />L.
Michael Hall, Ph.D.<br /><br />ISNS Executive Director<br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-4686078888997522272023-06-12T18:54:00.000-07:002023-06-12T18:54:39.566-07:00<p> META-STATING FOR HEALTHY AGING</p><br /> <br /><br />While the states you access
certainly play a big role in your well-being and<br />health, your meta-states
play an even bigger role. There are many reasons<br />for that. Primarily your
primary or first-level states are nearly always<br />appropriate. After all, all
of your emotions are valid and appropriate-if<br />they come from correct
assessment of the situation. In this, you and I need<br />our fear, our anger,
our stress, our sadness, etc. If and when appropriate,<br />these emotions create
the energy you need to respond effectively.<br /><br /> <br /><br />What you do not need
are negative thoughts and feelings as meta-states to<br />your primary states.
That's when and how things become unhealthy. Bring<br />negative states of
thoughts, feelings, beliefs, understandings, etc. against<br />your experience
(whatever it is), and you put yourself at odds with<br />yourself. And that
begins the process of neurosis! Consider the following<br />negative thoughts and
emotions and how they set a frame-of-reference for the<br />first-level
experience:<br /><br /> "I hate feeling this way!"<br /><br />
"Why do I have to be this way? It's not fair!"<br /><br /> "I'll
always be this way. Nothing ever works out for me."<br /><br />"Getting healthy is
a matter of luck-the right doctor, the right<br />medicine..."<br /><br />"Some people
just have healthier genetics. They don't have the struggles<br />that I
do."<br /><br /> "I gain weight just by looking at
food..."<br /><br /> "It's too much work to eat right, exercise
regularly, etc."<br /><br /> <br /><br />When you take a meta-level position to an
unpleasant primary state and bring<br />a state of hate, rejection,
non-acceptance, a discounting state, an<br />excuse-making/victim state, etc. to
it-you outframe your distress state in a<br />way that amplifies your distress.
The state-about-a-state that results<br />generates a layered complexity and
neurosis. You are meta-stating yourself<br />into illness.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Here
the way you use your self-reflexivity is creating a living hell out of<br />what
you would otherwise experience as something normal and a bit<br />unpleasant.
This illustrates that how you communicate to yourself about<br />your primary
states can create psychosomatic illnesses. But it doesn't have<br />to be that
way. You can use your reflexivity for vitality and well-being.<br />If, for
example, you apply an empowering state to your distress, you can<br />generate an
enhancing state of well-being. How? By meta-stating your<br />everyday
first-level states with such healing emotions as-love,
compassion,<br />acceptance, serenity, curiosity, hope, purpose, humor,
etc.<br /><br /> <br /><br />The subjective structure of many psycho-physiological
states resulting in<br />sickness, disease, and psychosomatic problems arise
because of the negative<br />mental-emotional states that you set. For example,
the problem is not that<br />you have a headache, it is rather that you hate your
headache. The problem<br />lies in how you are interpreting your experience. You
are turning your<br />psychic energies against yourself-and to your detriment.
You are layering<br />your experience with judgment, self-rejection, hatred,
guilt, shame, etc.<br />No wonder you feel sick; no wonder you are aging
unhealthily.<br /><br /> <br /><br />In this lies the paradoxical nature of accessing
states of joy,<br />pleasantness, acceptance, humor, fallibility, affection,
meaningfulness,<br />etc. about your fallibilities, hurts, dysfunctions, etc. As
you lighten up<br />to cease taking your first-level states so seriously, you are
setting a<br />higher level frame-of-reference around things. This creates what
we call<br />neuro-semantic magic at higher levels. Here there is the seeming
"magic" of<br />accepting and welcoming a headache so that the headache
vanishes.<br /><br /> Play with that one sometime. When you experience
the ache in<br />your head, instead of cursing it, rejecting it, tightening your
muscles and<br />trying to make it go away, just sit back, take a deep breath, and
welcome it<br />into your awareness. Notice the kind and quality of the "ache."
Do you<br />experience it as tightness, warmth, a pulsing, or what? Where do
you<br />experience it most intensely? Where does it begin to fade? How far does
it<br />extend? How do you experience a different intensity in it at
different<br />places?<br /><br /> <br /><br />The heart of a great many NLP and
Ericksonian approaches to states of<br />ill-health involves outframing. This
means moving to a higher logical level<br />and establishing a frame-of-reference
of acceptance, love, purpose/meaning,<br />learning, etc. In Milton Erickson's
classic approach to headaches, he first<br />simply accepted its presence and
encouraged a welcoming of it. He did this<br />by having a person curiously
explore its kinesthetic qualities.<br /><br /> Does it throb or pound?
Do you feel pressure or heat?<br /><br />Where do you centrally feel it? Where does
it begin to fade out?<br /><br />And if each throb is like a kitten stomping its
feet-and you imagine the<br />kitten stomping even harder...with more
force...<br /><br />At a higher level Erickson presupposed that the person could
become curious<br />about the pain. Then by accepting the pain from the frame of
curiosity, he<br />wondered how much control can you exercise over the cinematic
qualities.<br />Typically, the experience changes.<br /><br /> <br /><br />When it comes
to health and well-being, aging healthily, there are logical<br />levels. There
are higher level meta-states that can build up a much more<br />healthy mind-body
system. At the primary level-you can think and access<br />environmental
helps-sunshine, walks, good food, good medicine, restful<br />sleep, exercise,
etc. At the behavioral level of your primary state, you<br />can do these things
to create healthy habits. At the first meta-state<br />level, you can believe: "I
can influence my health and aging by establishing<br />healthy mental and
emotional habits." As an identity meta-state, you can<br />believe, "I am a
healthy person." At the intentional level, "I intend to<br />live healthily in my
eating, exercising, sleeping, etc." Herein lies a key<br />to aging
healthily.<br /><br /> <br /><br />How about one additional meta-state? Years ago Bob
Bodenhamer found the<br />following quotes in the USA Weekend Magazine , in the
Gaston Gazette<br />(January 3, 1999) and sent it to me. It came from an Annual
Health Report<br />on brain research. <br /><br />"Recently, a Dutch psychologist
tried to figure out what separated chess<br />masters and chess grand masters. He
subjected groups of each to a battery<br />of tests-IQ, memory, spatial reasoning.
He found no testing difference<br />between them. The only difference: Grand
masters simply loved chess more.<br />They had more passion and commitment to it.
Passion may be the key to<br />creativity." (Italics added)<br /><br /> <br /><br />The
point? To increase your effectiveness and well-being, meta-state your<br />work
with love and passion.<br /><br /> <br /><br />L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.<br /><br />ISNS
Executive Director<br /><br />P.O. Box 8<br /><br />Clifton Colorado 81520 USA<br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-80923134431650053312023-06-06T21:26:00.000-07:002023-06-06T21:26:13.187-07:00<p> HEALTHY AGING</p><br />AND STRESS<br /><br /> <br /><br />Earlier I mentioned that stress
is one of the key negative aging factors.<br />Yet it isn't the stress per se
that's the problem. In fact, we need stress.<br />We need stress to be alive and
to function well. Hans Selye made this point<br />decades ago when he relabeled
some stress as eu-stress (literally good<br />stress). This is the stress that
you and I experience as excitement, as<br />"passion," as "enthusiasm," or even as
"love." This is the stress that<br />optimally keeps you functioning
well.<br /><br /> <br /><br />We know and experience this kind of stress in any kind of
sport. The effort<br />you expend as you rally your speed or strength or
endurance to do something<br />that you find exciting expresses a healthy effort.
It enables your muscles<br />to grow, your lungs and heart to develop, it enables
you to tap into your<br />physical potentials. It's good for you! This is the
kind of stress I long<br />for and plan for when I go to the gym. The exercises I
engage in push me to<br />exert a level of effort that uses a certain set of
muscles and in the<br />process, enables the muscles to grow and to become
stronger or more<br />flexible. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Imagine a stress scale from 0 to
10. When you are at zero on that<br />scale-you are dead. There is nothing
going on, nothing is alive, nothing is<br />moving, nothing is striving. And at
the low numbers (1 to 3) there is very<br />little stress. You are resting,
relaxing, or sleeping (if it's healthy);<br />you are depressed or lacking
vitality (if unhealthy). Then there is the<br />range of eu-stress (4 to 6).
This is the healthy range-the range of stress<br />that you need to be alive and
growing. And this applies to the mind and<br />spirit as well as the body.
Beyond the eu-stress range is the dangerous<br />range (7 to 10). Here there is
too much stress and except for an emergency,<br />this is not a range to live
in.<br /><br /> <br /><br />What is "stress?" Stress refers to anything that activates
the<br />mind-body-emotion system requesting or demanding that we respond in order
to<br />deal with whatever is challenging. If the challenge or threat is in
the<br />eu-stress zone, things are fine. You have the resources for handling it
and<br />you probably love handing it. You find it exciting and enlivening.
But<br />above that, the challenge is a threat or an over-load. These are the
two<br />messages that kick in the general arousal syndrome when the brain gets
them.<br />Then, adrenaline and cortisol is released into your blood stream. Then
the<br />heart and lungs start pumping away as blood is withdrawn from brain
and<br />stomach and sent to the larger muscle units. Then to handle the
extreme<br />danger (the threat or over-load) you are ready to fight or flee, or
freeze.<br /><br /> <br /><br />If this happens on a temporary basis, it is acute stress
and designed to<br />help you deal with the emergency and then get back to
normal. But if this<br />happens regularly or, worse still, consistently, then
you are in chronic<br />stress. This will exasperate any illness or disease
and/or create different<br />diseases. It lies at the heart of cardio-vascular
diseases. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Now as a fact of life, stress is not the problem per
se. The problem lies<br />in how a person manages it or more accurately, how a
person does not manage<br />it. And again, the key goes to how you think about
stress, about over-load,<br />about adding more and more demands to everyday life,
about how you interpret<br />things as threat which are actually psychological
issues and not physical<br />threats, etc. <br /><br /> <br /><br />The bottom line is
that despite the idea that "stress makes you old," it is<br />actually not stress
that does that. It is rather the perception of stress<br />that ages you. It is
fearing stress, hating stress, living in stress-these<br />are the things that age
a person. It is the inability to manage stress well<br />and the lack of
resources for handling stress effectively-these are the<br />things that will age
you before your time.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Actually, living in and with eustress
keeps you young in body and in heart.<br />Living above the eustress level (from 7
to 10 on the stress scale)-that is<br />what will wear you out and makes you old.
To manage stress- change your<br />frames about things that are not true threats
or dangers, but psychological<br />fears. Build up your resources for handling
everyday challenges. Develop a<br />dozen de-stressing processes so that you can
quickly get stress out of your<br />body. Then you don't have to live with it.
Slow down and do one thing at a<br />time. Be fully present in everything you
do. These are the things that you<br />can choose to do that will enable you to
manage stress and prevent it from<br />undermining healthy
aging.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> Call Marie 0411515802<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />L. Michael Hall,
Ph.D.<br />Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-67571488962221616402023-06-01T03:20:00.000-07:002023-06-01T03:20:15.657-07:00<p style="text-align: left;"> THE EXPERIENCE</p><br />IS NOT THE MEANING<br /><br /> <br /><br />If there's any
misbelief, myth, misunderstanding, and false perspective that<br />influences just
about everyone, it is the idea that your experiences<br />determine your
meanings. That's wrong. It's wrong on many accounts. And<br />it is an error
that undermines the quality of life, the response-power of a<br />person, that
denies a person joy and hope, and that misdirects how to cope<br />with
experiences.<br /><br /> <br /><br />To give you an idea of how pervasive this deadly
idea is, consider the<br />following statements. Sadly, they are as common as
they are erroneous and<br />misleading.<br /><br />"Losing my dream job means I'll
never find another one as good."<br /><br />"I can't help but feel depressed,
everyone does when they go through a<br />divorce."<br /><br />"I can't help but being
negative. The way I was treated as a child has made<br />me the pessimistic
person that I am today."<br /><br />"You don't understand what being molested does
to a person, it's something<br />that you don't just get over, you carry it with
you all the days of your<br />life."<br /><br />"What I want is to fall in love
because then I would feel really good about<br />myself and have the high
self-esteem that I have always wanted."<br /><br />"We're social beings so needing
approval is just built in, so don't tell me<br />that I need to have thicker skin
and not take criticism so personal."<br /><br /> <br /><br />The hidden idea behind all
of these is that your experiences determine your<br />life. They determine your
meanings, your emotions, and your responses. And<br />what we can infer behind
that is that you have very limited range of<br />responses when you have certain
experiences. If you have had X-given<br />experience, then you are pretty much
fated to think, feel, speak, and act in<br />a certain way. And to make that more
explicit: you can't help yourself.<br />You have to feel depressed if you had a
loss. You have to feel suicidal if<br />you were publically humiliated. You have
to feel an insolvable grief if you<br />lost the love of your
life.<br /><br /> <br /><br />If experience determines life, then we are all in a pretty
desperate and<br />pretty much hopeless situation. However, there's good
news-experience does<br />not determine your response! In fact, whatever happens,
whatever experience<br />you have or go through-you have a whole range of ways to
respond. This is<br />worth writing down- whatever the experience, you have many
choices about how<br />to interpret it.<br /><br /> <br /><br />The truth is that you have
the power inside you to choose your response.<br />That's why we have the word,
response-ability or response-power. You can<br />determine what your experience
means and how to perceive it. You can draw a<br />whole range of different
conclusions about the experience so that you can<br />give it the best one
possible. In this way, you have the power to fashion<br />your world, your
thinking, your emoting, your coping, and your mastering of<br />your life
situations. The power does not belong to the experience, to the<br />event-it
belongs to you. You are the meaning-maker.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Alfred Adler spoke
to this subject in his book, Understanding Human Nature<br />(1927). There he
argued that the key is how a person interprets the<br />experience and that from
that conclusion he creates his how "style of life"<br />which he will then project
onto other experiences.<br /><br />"We must remember that any experience may have
many interpretations. We<br />will find that there are no two people who will
draw the same conclusion<br />from a similar experience. This accounts for the
fact that our experiences<br />do not always make us any cleverer." (1927, p.
20)<br /><br /> <br /><br />Whatever you have experienced is just that-an experience.
What that<br />experience means, however, depends on you. It depends on how you
think<br />about it, perceive it, reason about it, draw conclusions from it, in
a<br />word-how you interpret it and give it meaning. And whatever meaning
you<br />give it, that's the semantics that you have created and from that will
come<br />your neurology, your emotions, your body sensations, your physiology,
your<br />felt life. Together we now have your neuro-semantic
reality.<br /><br /> <br /><br />It is in this way that we say that you have a
neuro-semantic nature. And<br />the key is your semantics, your meaning-making
powers. That's what enables<br />you to live with hope and optimism, with
resilience and determination, and<br />to make your life a work of
art.<br /><br /> If you are interested in making changes,<div>give me a call.</div><div><br /></div><div>Marie 0411 515 802<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />L. Michael
Hall, Ph.D.<br /><br /><div><br /></div></div>Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2794411606467363048.post-82353587161745435942023-04-28T22:15:00.001-07:002023-04-28T22:15:57.795-07:00<p> <b style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 20pt;">THE NEURO-SEMANTICS</span></b></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: 20pt;">BEHIND MASKING</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Behind every experience, every
activity, every event—there are meanings and where there are meanings there are
elicitations of neurology. So now that the governments which forced us to wear
masks have ended “the mask mandate,” what have we learned? What meanings have
we discovered? Do masks work? Did the masks that we were forced to wear
actually prevented the spread of Covid? The evidence that is now coming in
suggests a strong <i>negative </i>answer. No, they did not actually work to
limit the spread.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">A lot of the confusion was and
still is caused by the inept way governments attempted to communicate about
covid. Most governments did an extremely poor job. For one thing, they
over-promised. “Get the vaccine and you will not get covid.” That proved
false. “Wear a mask and substantially reduce the spread of covid.” Again, that
proved incorrect. Further, many governments took a very heavy-handed approach
by punishing anyone who did not wear a mask, including firing them or jailing
them. Then there was the man swimming in the ocean under a sunshine sky who was
arrested for not wearing a mask—while swimming of all
things!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What’s ironic here in the US is
that the first recommendation from Dr. Fauci was to stop wearing masks.
Remember? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 31.5pt;">“When you’re in the middle of an
outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it
might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that
people think it is.” <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">That’s what he said in the
early days of the epidemic. Then he explained further: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 31.5pt;">“Often, there are unintended
consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask, and they keep touching their
faces.” (Video of Fauci saying ‘There’s no Reason to be Walking around with a
Mask’ Rueters, Oct. 8, 2020).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 31.5pt;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">For medical questions like
this, a UK-based non-profit organization known as Cochrane has long provided a
major source of high quality, reputable meta-analyses. They have published
comprehensive meta-analyses on medical and therapeutic interventions. The
result:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 31.5pt;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">“Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical
masks and respiratory against SARS. Disposable, cotton, or paper masks <i>are
not recommended.”<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 31.5pt;"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">“</span></i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Single-use
medical masks are preferable to cloth masks, for which there is no evidence of
protection and which might facilitate transmission of pathogens when used
repeatedly without adequate sterilization.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 31.5pt;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">“Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or
no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/ SARS-CoV2
compared to not wearing masks.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Then there is the issue about
<i>how</i> to wear a mask consistently and correctly. Studies have shown that
“if you have properly fitted N95 masks you do have some protection.” Yet as one
doctor said, “Outside of hospital I have never seen a properly fitted mask. The
observation I’m sharing is this, if you can smell wood smoke while wearing your
face covering of choice, you’re probably not at all protected from
Covid.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Accordingly, taking a mask off
to get a drink or eat radically reduces the effectiveness of the mask and does
so to such an extent that the mask becomes essentially worthless. This was what
struck me as completely ridiculous on the numerous airlines I have flown in the
past year. “You have to wear a mask, you can take it off when you are eating or
drinking. Then you have to put it back on.” And this is a context where the
air is conditioned and filtered so it is as “clean” as a surgery
room!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What we have found is that what
a mask mostly protects is <i>you <b>from </b>projecting the virus </i>into the
area immediately around you if you have Covid. That means that the only persons
who should wear a mask is <i>someone with covid! </i>If you have the flu, wear
a mask. Then a mask would warn the rest of us <i>who to avoid. </i>Only in
that way would a mask slow the spread.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">One of the problems with
wearing a mask is that it creates a false confidence. For many people, wearing
a mask makes them feel that they are doing something that effectively reduces
the chance of getting the flu or covid. But because that is not really the
case, it’s a false confidence. It may deceive you into thinking you are doing
something useful. But it may be satisfying a person’s paranoia without actually
contributing to one’s well-being. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> For more: <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/the-mask-of-ignorance">https://www.city-journal.org/the-mask-of-ignorance</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 31.5pt;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><a href="https://www.thejournal.ie/what-have-recent-scientific-studies-said-about-masks-and-disease-6026435-Mar2023/">https://www.thejournal.ie/what-have-recent-scientific-studies-said-about-masks-and-disease-6026435-Mar2023/</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">
<o:p></o:p></span></p><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" /></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ISNS Executive Director<o:p></o:p></p>Better Lifehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014057029336135956noreply@blogger.com0