PDA

View Full Version : Review: Cracking the Code


Don
04-19-2009, 12:05 PM
Cracking the Code is a recent book from Thom Hartmann. Hartmann is primarily known for being a very liberal pundit. However, he has also been a psychotherapist in Vermont, the executive director of a residential treatment facility for severely emotionally disturbed and abused children, and written books on ADHA (numerous books including Thom Hartmann's Complete Guide to ADHD: Help for Your Family at Home, School and Work) and depression (Walking Your Blues Away: How to Heal the Mind and Create Emotional Well-Being). Hartmann is also and NLP practitioner and a certified NLP trainer. He trained with Leif Roland, Paul McKenna, and Richard Bandler. Bandler wrote the forward to one of his books.

Cracking the Code does something unique…or sort of. Hartmann's basic concept is that conservative politicians, including Carl Rove, Newt Gingrich, and Frank Luntz have made specific statements and outlines of how to reach the emotions and beliefs of voters, thus, he contends, getting the voters to cast votes contrary to their own interests. This book is an attempt to explain how the mind and belief systems of people works, how most current liberals have failed to understand it, and how liberals can become more successful if the "crack the code" of how the mind really works and use the techniques to communicate better with voters.

Now, before I go on, I am not trying here to convince people to become more or less politically liberal or conservative. Frankly, some of the comments in this book directed at the attitudes of conservatives will be objected to by conservatives, perhaps because it reveals what they believe. Similarly, however, it also attacks the techniques of liberals, and many liberals will object to his comments about people such as John Kerry, perhaps because it reveals too much of how liberals have acted.

Even so, the book is clearly liberal in nature. Remember, fellow NLPers, that a person is not their behavior, so the question about this book is, "aside from the politics, is there anything of value to an NLP practitioner?"

Indeed, I would contend that no matter your politics, there is a lot to recommend this book.

Although he barely mentions NLP more than a couple of times in the text, the book is filled with NLP concepts. Anyone who has taken a Prac training or even just read a bit about the subject will easily recognize numerous concepts ranging from ways to use modalities to encourage belief change to anchoring and future pacing. But so what? There are lots of books that cover these topics?

The advantage to NLP is that because it is a set of techniques, if one technique doesn't help a person, another will. That seems to be the focus of a lot of NLP training. Some aspects of training stress learning modalities for working with advertising (appealing to a number of people to encourage change). When dealing with a group of people in a live situation, the focus in trainings seems to be on gaining rapport and attracting attention via nested metaphors.

This book offers a different approach to using NLP principles to effect change in groups of people. Rather than focus on Rapport and attention gathering techniques, it looks at a concept Hartmann refers to as "the story." He contends that conservatives since the 1980s have constantly driving home a certain story as to how life in our culture should be. Curiously, even most conservatives disagree with the methodology of the story (the story chunks up), but they have been so indoctrinated with the conservative story that they'll ignore the details to feel good about living the story.

Liberals, the book states, have a story, but chunk down and tell the details without chunking up to share the story. As a result the message or story of the liberal is often turned off, and the voter is turned off, too.

In the conclusion--again without mentioning NLP--the author gives a program that liberals can use to share their story (in the sense above) and thus have a stronger effect on voters, bringing the voters' personal "story" in harmony with the liberal story.

To return back to my original concept of this review, if you ignore the politics, you can see the difference between effective and ineffective communication with groups giving practical and well-known examples. So Cracking the Code goes beyond theory and moves to practical information, in lay terms, on how you can use NLP to better communicate with groups of people. Specifically, he suggests and show how to chunk up to "the story" and use both away and toward arguments to help bring people toward your point of view.

Highly recommended for practical use of NLP when communicating with groups (especially), however only if you can separate you political views of the content from the NLP techniques.

parsa
04-19-2009, 03:53 PM
Some how reminds me

'Resistance is futile you will be assimilated'

Poodle
04-19-2009, 03:54 PM
Bandler would give you "the look" for using the words "nested metaphors".
I sure know "I got it" and was told "it's NOT A METAPHOR". Yes sir. Whatever you say sir as I slinked (slunk?) away.

Think I'll read it. Thank you~Pood

Vin
04-20-2009, 02:46 AM
I read the book "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation" by Drew Westen, which is very similar in contents to the book reviewed by Don. Highly, highly recommended. Also this one very liberal, it does a great job in explaining the success of Reagan, Bush & Bush.

Vin

Poodle
04-20-2009, 10:37 AM
The "success" of Reagan, Bush, Bush at what specifically -- getting elected possibly? :confused:

Connie
04-20-2009, 10:39 AM
I liked it when Bandler looked at me. :) He did have a strange expression, after I kissed him--on the cheek.

Poodle
04-20-2009, 11:22 AM
That's the LOOK you want. I know that look and I love that look. The one when one says something he does not like shoots daggers through your whole body. There's the old saying "If looks could kill". He's got it!! I most definitely would not want to really tick that man off.

Vin
04-20-2009, 02:08 PM
The "success" of Reagan, Bush, Bush at what specifically -- getting elected possibly? :confused:

Yes Poodle, getting elected. The author tries to explain why and how the 3 of them won. Al Gore, smart but not charismatic, was defeated (probably, maybe, who knows, right Jeb?) by George W., illitterate, with a passion for spirits and for bombing around. Why Kerry lost? Why Dukakis? Why Clinton won? It's a wonderful book, I learned a lot by reading that.

Vin

Don
04-20-2009, 04:03 PM
The author tries to explain why and how the 3 of them won.
Vin

That, of course, is assuming that any of the pundits, including the ones named here, have it right and it is not simply that we are in rapport with them so we want them to be right.

Many years ago I read a book called Money by Adam Smith. In it he made an astute comment about the stock market. He wrote that when the market's going up...it's going up. And when it's going down...it's going down. Anybody who can predict the direction of the market all the time is simply lying.

See the movie Pi.

Poodle
04-20-2009, 06:37 PM
to read Vin's book written by Al Franken. ROFL!! :eek:

Vin
04-21-2009, 03:56 PM
to read Vin's book written by Al Franken. ROFL!! :eek:

Oh, politics. At least in Italy we take things less seriously, but in the US, oh my dear.

Vin

Vin
04-21-2009, 04:02 PM
That, of course, is assuming that any of the pundits, including the ones named here, have it right and it is not simply that we are in rapport with them so we want them to be right.

Many years ago I read a book called Money by Adam Smith. In it he made an astute comment about the stock market. He wrote that when the market's going up...it's going up. And when it's going down...it's going down. Anybody who can predict the direction of the market all the time is simply lying.

See the movie Pi.


Don,
sample size is definitely too low for any inference. Nevertheless, he's pretty convincing and he also brings some studies performed in laboratory settings very interesting. One thing was pretty clear: if Jesus would come back trying to be elected, 30% of voters would be for sure against him (probably more). Democrats (centre, slightly on the left in European countries) have one big problem all over the world: they think they are the smartest and they act accordingly.

Vin

Don
04-21-2009, 05:26 PM
Sorry, Vin, this has nothing to do with sample size. It has to do with how the mind works.

BTW, here in the U.S., most people think that the Democrats are on the political left. As you point out, when compared to the politics of the world, U.S. Democrats are centrist. U.S. Republicans are far right.

Note, however, that I used the plural. Individuals are all over the place. In fact, when you ask most conservatives in the U.S. about individual issues, they'll take centrist to mildly liberal points of view. Interestingly, they'll identify with the the Republican party. Why? Because for the past three decades the Republican party has presented it's message in a more meaningful way.

Connie
04-21-2009, 06:55 PM
That's the LOOK you want. I know that look and I love that look. The one when one says something he does not like shoots daggers through your whole body. There's the old saying "If looks could kill". He's got it!! I most definitely would not want to really tick that man off.

Not sure I understand your post here! I haven't seen the "dagger" look, but I've seen the serious look. The "do what I say or get the hell out" look. I think he's a sweetie pie. :daze:

Poodle
07-21-2009, 10:30 AM
"NLP is an attitude and a methodology, not the trail of techniques it leaves behind." Bandler

Pood :)

skip
07-22-2009, 08:56 AM
OK guys I realize that I am outnumbered here but not out gunned.

As one, of many, who has viewed liberals as propogating 'symbolism over substance' and 'do not judge me by results but by intention' ...

I find is very interesting that "you" (collectively) percieve Regan, Bush(s), Rove, et al thru the same jaundiced eye that I percieve Clinton(s), Kennedy, Polosi, Obama et al, and come to the same conclusion as I do except about the 'wrong' group. (And you could say verbatim the same about me.)

Now without getting into a useless argumrent about who is correct in their assessment ...

How can intelligent (so I assume) people read the same 'record' and come to completely opposite conclusions?

I would propose that it is becaue the belief filters the evidence admitted, and skews the concluions thus obtained.

I have seen speeches analyed from both sides of the 'asile' for 'nefarious' NLP techniques and they are invarably found.

My concluion is that anyone who becomes adept at persuading people will invarably use the same techniques as NLP describes, because they work. It doesnt matter how they came to learn those techniques.

And I contend that there is nothing odious about their using those techniques because it is their job to persuade and to change and form public opinion. That some persuade people down the 'wrong' path is a matter of opinion.

Want to fix it? (in whatever direction you think the fix ought to go)

How about this proposal?

1. Restore real civics classes so that our children learn how our system of govt is supposed to work. (the political bias of the teachers to be determined at another time)

2. Restore real economics classes so that our children can learn whether or not tax cuts, tax increaes, minimum wage increaes, taxes on business, et al really will have the effect politicians claim they will have.

3. Teach persuasion/ propaganda techniqies, so that people have the opportunity to know when they are being manipulated and how.


4. Restore the press to its watchdog role. I have friends who believe 'Dubya' got a free pass in the press while I believe they excoriated him. Now I believe 'Obanation' is getting a free pass while those same friends want the press to stop crucifying him. How can that be? And dont tell me it is because the press IS doing its job. I wont believe you and neither will my liberal friends. We both believe the press isnt doing its job. (I suspect the truth is the press has its own agenda, and has ceased being the watch dog and is pressing its agenda using its role fraudently. They shape and make the news by choosing what to report and what to leave out, as opposed to reporting it. YMMV)

5. Get the professional politicians out of politics. Whether that is term limits, or something else, I would like to go back to the idea that someone leaves their job, goes and SERVES in office and then returns to their job.

thoughts,

skip

parsa
07-22-2009, 09:34 AM
Skip,

I agree with all your proposals and I would like to add another one.

How about a third party?

The two party systems seems to make every discussion one of which either side is crying 'the sky will fall' if you accept the other side's ideas, often without even bothering to come up with a half decent solution themselves.

And about the media; how do you propose we do that?

skip
07-22-2009, 10:04 AM
parsa,

I would tend to go along with that since I dont seem to have a party myself right now.

However, Third Party is actually what got Clinton elected. It siphons off votes, and you end up with, (for better or worse), a minority elected candidate.

And if you examine our two(?) party system you will find that both parties are made up of coalitions of groups, each with their own interests, who realize that they have no hope, on their own, of wining an election. So they band together, hoping their group wins, and that some of their agenda will get implemented that way.

In truth I personally would prefer a better vetting method of putting two candidates forward. Lets face it, Clinton(s), Bush, Gore, McCain, Edwards, Obama, (and God forbid anything happens to Obama cause then we would have Biden) just to name a few; if that is the best our country has to offer, we are in serious trouble.

Can you imagine what it would be like to have two candidates , each of whom you could vote for because both have sterling qualities of leadership and expertise, such that you have a hard time deciding which you actually prefer? Or would that be mediocraty.

Maybe having clear and substanative differeces such that your preference is clear is best.

Right now we seem to have to choose which of the dregs is least unpleasant.

skip

Poodle
07-22-2009, 03:04 PM
When asked why he would give up a thriving medical practice to go to Washington to consort with the worst slime this country has to offer, he simply said: It will stay that way until honest and good people go and change it. Unfortunately, from my POV, he has totally sold out sooo so much for consorting with the worst slime this country has to offer. I guess it rubs off or is in the water or something. :rolleyes:

Pood did not vote for President in this past election as she could not see any choices -- that's 44 years of elections. I usually drop everything to work on campaigns but not this time around.

Don
07-22-2009, 03:14 PM
Unfortunately, from my POV, he has totally sold out


My first law of politics:

No matter how good a person is when elected to office, very quickly his or her sole purpose becomes to stay in office.

While there are always exceptions to the rule, they are few and far between. That is why I agree with my late grandfather who used to say, "Vote the old bums out and vote the new bums in."

skip
07-22-2009, 04:57 PM
I am convinced that some seek election because they want to really accomplish something good. (whether that is a flawed vision or not IMO notwithstanding)

And you are right Don, the main theme seems to have to be from day one, "How do we get reelected?"

Which is why I want to take that factor out of the equation.

There will be no reelection.

So now do what you came there for. (for good or ill)

cheers,

skip

Poodle
07-22-2009, 08:10 PM
was interesting from a NLP POV. Absolutely totally ALL Nonsensory Predicates except once. Even with Q&A's he was nonsensory.

Hmmmmm........