When do you consider it ethical

[MrDigital]

To try and change a persons behaviour or thinking without their conscious awareness....

[Poodle]

Answer: NEVER! Plain and simple although it often happens as the result of a great training. ;)

[Connie]

To try and change a persons behaviour or thinking without their conscious awareness....

The interesting word here is "try." We all do influence behavior and thinking every second of every day. It's called being alive. You smile at a stranger. That smile has influence. Did you intend it or did it just happen spontaneously on your face? Is one smile ethical and one not?

How about the realm of advertising to change a person's behavior or thinking? That happens more often than breathing. Is advertising ethical? Is it ethical that I should be unconsciously influenced to run out and buy a coke because I want to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony and it's the real thing, baby and everything goes better with coke after coke after coca-cola..?

Or is your question more focused? Are you only asking about a person consciously using those tricky NLP techniques "on" someone who is unsuspecting and who has no desire to change?

[skip]

I do it all the time.

Some of the time it is because someone asked me to help them with something and I do. Permission doesnt guarantee awareness.

Most of the time I carry others along with my own state and often enhance their day as a result.

And every now and again, I may be a touch unethical.


cheers,

skip

[MrDigital]

I Was thinking along the terms of 'state' change as skip mentioned which also got me pondering other scenarios where I tend to give advice etc.

My thinking is if you can 'help' then 'help' you don't need thanks for everything you do in life - as long as it's within certain boundaries.

Then what are YOUR boundaries?

Say for example, you know someone who has a problem i.e they state it as a problem and in general conversation you throw in a 'metaphor' and give them something to think about. It may or may not have an impact and they may or may not take it on board but if your intentions are good and in what you feel are positive, do you have to reveal your an Nlper?

I was talking to someone who is suffering from cancer of the throat and Is seeking treatments throughout Europe I am an associate of his, nothing else. The possibilities of using NLP to positive effect covertly in my opinion can't be anything other than good use. Maybe it's just giving hope to someone who feels they have none in an NLP way. Is that so wrong?

Its like trying to build yourself a home with no tools you'd still attempt it and you'd most likely acheive it if you was determined. Then you come accross some tools, will you decide it's not worth doing even though you know you can do a better job?

P.S I am training next week Poodle

[MrDigital]

I need it ;)

[Connie]

My thinking is if you can 'help' then 'help' you don't need thanks for everything you do in life

Have you ever seen the cartoon where a good samaritan helps this little old lady across the street...and then she proceeds to WHAP him angrily with her cane? She wasn't interested in crossing the street.

Who defines "help" and how is it different from coercion or interfering?

[Docresults]

Answer: NEVER! Plain and simple although it often happens as the result of a great training. ;)

I was going to answer this but Poodle changed my thinking without her conscious awareness.

To Your Best,
Doc

[Connie]

This is about you "working" on your girlfriend again, isn't it?

[MrDigital]

Agreed Connie and maybe I use the nominalisation 'Help' to loosely.

My thoughts of help when it comes to people is just being able to offer assistance with the skills we have aquired and not necessary for financial gain just because the opportunity to guide arises. I think of it as offering another choice that may not have been considered prior. Sometimes we can get too entwined in our own emotions to be able to consider the options.

If i see someone walking round acting like a chicken I'm not going to try change them into a pig because I think pigs are more intelligent.
Just situations where common sense can hopefully prevail and you can drop the NLP label and do what you think is in the best interests of who your communicating with.

A friend tells you he/she has financial difficulties and was keeping it from his/her family because they fear they would be seen as a failiure. With a chance of dropping a reframe/metaphor etc. can you pass here? or are you intefering?

To (me) I would find it very difficult to pass, and It might even produce a result. If it doesn't what have they lost. If I can offer a choice an option a little shove in the right direction then I am on it 100%. When a new road is built it doesn't mean you must drive that way.

[MrDigital]

Connie:
This is about you "working" on your girlfriend again, isn't it?

Not in any shape or form this is a completely different thread with a completely different angle..

[Terry (existing)]

"Ethics", the path we choose conciously because we perceive it as being the proper path for us and our sense of concience... Think about it, was that really a smart question to ask? If you have a concience, you have ethics, and they may be the same as mine, or different. If you choose to walk the path of an ethical person, you have no need to ask others, and if you ask, I suggest it is to find a way round something you know to be unethical, and want someone to verify for you that it is OK. Teens do this frequently because concience in them is still forming. Adults sometimes choose to cheat, and look for others to agree with them, but God only knows why. You can lie to everyone but yourself and get away with it, but those who try to cheat themselves are surely the most foolish of people.
What you build within will come out one day greater then when it went in, and nobody can change that fact, even a hypnotist.

[Connie]

If I can offer...a little shove in the right direction then I am on it 100%.

The right direction. That's a judgment you're making. The shovee might not agree. I'm not calling you Hitler, but he's one of my favorite examples of this. I'm sure his intentions were to shove the world in the right direction, too.

[MrDigital]

I was talking one of my staff today who is in training to be a Chartered Accountant and I asked her opinion of one of the Senior Chartered Accountants. Her 'state' change instantly and she explained that she found him very condascending to the extent that he made her make mistakes and un-nerved her whenever she had to deal with him.

I Said to her that years ago I had the same experience with one of my bosses and he made me feel like I was worthless and even the slightest job became a difficulty under his watchful eye. Tha man was a challenge to me in a way I was unsure about dealing and over a period of time I learned how to deal with him. I said that a lot of my successes though were down to him and people like him because once you see them for who they really are they are motivators of the highest order.

I told her to look at her situation as a challenge. When you need to speak to him imagine him blown up 5x his cheeks puffed up about to explode. Pale him into insignificance, even imagine blowing him away because he means nothing to you. I said you can still respect him for his abilities but you needn't respect his manner or his venom.

I went on to say that I now look for people like this as they are my driving force and once she had overcome this scenario she'd move in leaps and bounds. Her Chartered Accountancy Qualification would be worth a 100 of his because she has the ethics and morals that will go with it, so use him to your advantage and make sure you stay a better person not a bitter one!!

Oh and by the way Terry thanks for your comments I was expecting them!

[MrDigital]

Push then :p

[pmdigi]

no offence, - hitler seems like too extreme an example to me - most people just want to help out a little.;)

[Poodle]

regarding your co-worker. What did she say to you that made you believe it was a visual thing and perhaps not an auditory one? If I can ever teach anything to anyone, it is to be VERY AWARE of the other person's language to the 1000th degree. It could just be one little word that will aid you in leading them out of a problem. Yes. So simple that you only need to change one word - no visualization done by you or blowing out sounds. Sometimes it is just that easy but as of yet you have not reached that point. Keep up with the trainings and enjoy NLP and have fun as NLP is really fun. You need to ENJOY it to the utmost and it is quite impossible to learn if you do not attend your trainings. Who knows - the trainer just may make you the demo subject next time and get rid of some of those negative beliefs you seem to want to hold on to. It's been known to happen to all of us at NLP trainings. By the time we are done it's like we've been reborn -- no more yesterdays unless they were wonderful yesterdays and a future so brilliant and so bright. Whoofie! Time is for the making so make the most out of it. Pood

Glad to read you are going back and when you go why not take the attitude that this really is MINE and make it yours and when you get done, you'l be saying: Your A** IS MINE & JUST GO FOR IT!

[Connie]

no offence, - hitler seems like too extreme an example to me - most people just want to help out a little.;)

Why? I'm talking about positive intentions. I'm of the belief that every action someone makes, no matter how heinous in the eyes of others, has a positive intention somewhere behind it. Hitler and Osama and child molesters, etc. they all have/had positive intentions driving them.

My question to OP is what makes you think YOUR judgment is better than someone elses in terms of pushing them in a direction you want for them? The context you stated is of using NLP skills covertly to "help" them. You have no such right to decide what help is and unilaterally take actions you think will achieve that. Terry is right! It's not a question for us. It's a question for each of us, internally. Decide for yourself. I think he's right on again when he suggests that you're seeking justification for what you want to do but know somewhere inside that you shouldn't.

[pmdigi]

Dear Connie, i'm not the one who originally posted - this is pmdigi - it just struck a nerve when i saw the word "hitler" and i "knee-jerk" responded. Sorry!

[Poodle]

believe it or not but Skip and I have had some very interesting conversations regarding "everything has a positive intention". It's what the books say so it's just gotta be true, right? Now, will you please put that statement and a pedaphile together for me? You may find that you reach the same conclusions we did. The book just is not 100% correct 100% of the time.

[skip]

Mr Digital,

You will always have an effect on others.

Sometimes this is intentional other times it is unintentional.

Anytime you intentionally make a change in someone you violate their sanctity. Just as cutting someone violates the body's sanctity.

No exceptions.

Sometimes people ask for that, as in a theraputic relationship, and that makes it OK. Still violating their sanctity, but ethical. Just as in a surgeon performing an operation.

Any time you intentionaly violate their sanctity without their permission you have acted unethically.

No exceptions. None.

Your intention is irrelevent.

The fact that you say you are trying to 'help' them in some way, only makes you a benevolent rapist. Either that, or an apologist for a selfish rapist.

And the fact that you are the sole determinant of what form that covert help takes only serves to make you a selfish egotistical rapist.

And the delusion you cultivate, that you are really only doing good, only serves to sooth your sorry conscience.

That one occasionally does it, only makes you human.

That you resist the temptation more often than not contributes to the idea that you are a good person.

cheers,

skip

[Connie]

Skip...I love you. :D

Poodle, here's the connection between pedophilia and positive intentions. Why are they doing what they're doing? It's not random. Do they want love, do they want respect, do they want a feeling of power, do they want a feeling of control in their life? All those things are positive. The expression of those things may be misguided, as it was in the case of Hitler, but the intention was still positive.

[Docresults]

believe it or not but Skip and I have had some very interesting conversations regarding "everything has a positive intention". It's what the books say so it's just gotta be true, right? Now, will you please put that statement and a pedaphile together for me? You may find that you reach the same conclusions we did. The book just is not 100% correct 100% of the time.

Poodle, Skip and ALL,

As with most language, including the written word what is usually written is most times surface structure.

"Everything has a positive intention behind it" would be part of that surface structure.

Years ago before I ever went to Carmine and met Cooper's daddy I wrote a paper about this for Michael Hall's Neuro-Semantic group. What it boils down to is the addition of one word to make the statement 100% correct and line up with all the other NLP presuppositions.

I'll italicize the word just in case we miss it.

"Everything has a positive 'SELF' intention behind it."

(OK I did more than italicize it, can you find the word?)

Oh yeah, it might not be true and yet it is extremely useful in circumstances where one needs to apply the concept.

To Your Best,
Doc

"If you miss something, wait, 20 or 30 seconds and the clues will present themselves again." My Grampa Vetter

[MrDigital]

Sometimes people ask for that, as in a theraputic relationship, and that makes it OK. Still violating their sanctity, but ethical. Just as in a surgeon performing an operation.

There are many people walking the planet that fear the word 'therapy' and the 'theraputic' environment. Many people would love the opportunity to express their desire for change but are afraid of admitting their perceived weaknesses.

Poodle, I am constantly looking to improve myself and find limiting beliefs that may elude me. I love trainings & will continue to do more as I have found them feelings of enlightenment before and liked the buzz.

Sometimes I think these forums can be very disheartening for folk with a genuine desire to improve themselves. However, as long as people do not delude themselves too much in the quality of responses at times then they can be an inspirational source of learning. Maybe in time i'll improve to the posess the perfect map and no longer will my writings get 'raped'.

I dont have time to be a therapist at the minute you'll be glad to hear I'm too busy starting the 4th reich...

Peace Brothers:D

[Docresults]

Hello ALL,

Understanding where Skip is coming from I want to play a little with these scary words.

sanctity
Something considered sacred.

sacred (from Latin, sacer, "untouchable") or "holy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy)", objects, places or concepts are believed by followers to be intimately connected with God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) or a divinity and are thus greatly revered.

violate To break or disregard (a law or promise, for example).To do harm to (property or qualities considered sacred); desecrate or defile. To disturb rudely or improperly; interrupt: violated our privacy.

Before I get into my thinking my first thought was if as Skip said, since we always have an effect on others intentionally or unintentionally... who makes up these funny hoops and contortions we set up to jump through and put such harsh judgments on ourselves and others?

BTW I just love the binds these hoops set up.

(I am coming from the frame that all physical is an extension of the Non-physical, or all earthly is an extension of divinity. Remember I'm just wondering here. I am not saying one must take on these beliefs. I'm just contemplating on the computer.)

As far as I can tell I am not aware of any other extension of divinity (earth, plants, animals, who make these types of judgments. (My suspension is they are not calibrations as they are all statements about internal process, not very grounded in sensory based terms and the individual is the ONLY one who can be responsible for their thoughts and actions and yet we want to control and conform what others can or can not do.)

How can unintentional change be ok and un-asked for intentional change not be ok? (I know I'm gonna love the hoop set up to jump through this one on.)

For that matter how can 'asked for intentional change' still be considered doing harm, defiling, to disturb rudely or improperly?

And who is the group that gets the right to determine all this stuff? How did they get this power and how do I get such awesome power?

The word violate (to me) has such a violent connotation and I remember that the feminist movement at one time said that even consenting sex between a man and his wife is still rape. (one of the reasons I don't tell a feminist when we are having sex. Like the last one I dated said, "if you can do it without waking me up, I'm fine with that" I wasn't.)

If the extension of divine can be labeled unethical does the divine effect change without our permission and therefore be unethical in the process?

Can one be unethical and violate oneself? (Again how do I get on the committee who gets to make up these hoops?)

If something is untouchable how can touching it be violating it as untouchable would be unable to touch and if it can be touched how can it really be untouchable? (One of those hoops with fire to jump through.)

And isn't every thing intimately connected to divinity, some are just aware and use the connection and others aren't aware so therefore do not take advantage of what is there. If this is so how does the scared violate sanctity?

Who came up with the no-exception hoop? (That would be cool if the first hoop was 'there are no hoops' and the second was 'no-exceptions, ever'.)

I thinking maybe hoop making is the distinction that gives us the right to wear the label human. No other part of divinity wanted to have to jump so much.

To Your Best,
Doc Houston

"If life gives you lemons, you know you didn't plant giraffes."
My Grampa Vetter

[Don]

There are many people walking the planet that fear the word 'therapy' and the 'theraputic' environment. Many people would love the opportunity to express their desire for change but are afraid of admitting their perceived weaknesses...

You're absolutely correct!
So if you're qualified as a psychologist and trained in doing interventions (on psychological, ethical, and legal grounds), then go ahead.

But as was told in Spiderman (sometimes good philosophy comes from the strangest places!), "with great power comes great responsibility." If you are trained in hypnosis and/or NLP, you have skills (or "powers") that most people don't possess. Do you have the right to use them simply because you think someone would be better off living and thinking the way YOU do? That "responsibility" aspect also means "don't stick your nose where it doesn't belong!"

Let me tell you something. Two years ago my brother died. At times he was in great pain, including mentally, physically, and spiritually. I knew I could help him. Every time I tried I was rebuffed. Whether it was using hypnosis, the bits of NLP I knew, or just talking, he preferred to be in pain. It's what he wanted and he suffered for it. I think in part, it's because he wanted the attention and pity. It was very hard on him.

Another person, as hypnotherapists put it, "fell into his trance." She became his de facto mother figure and I watched in horror as he became more and more infantile. His VA doctors didn't care and his nurses didn't care because she took responsibility and work away from them.

I have absolutely no doubt that I could have helped! I wanted to see my brother survive and thrive. But I also realized that the situation I observed is what everyone (excluding me) wanted. So I backed off, bit my tongue until it was metaphorically sore, and felt a great deal of guilt because I wasn't allowed to help when I knew I could. I'm still dealing with personal issues about this.

But I also know what I did was right. Not interfering where my help is not wanted is part of that "responsibility" I wrote about above. Responsibility means knowing what to do and what not to do.


Sometimes I think these forums can be very disheartening for folk with a genuine desire to improve themselves. However, as long as people do not delude themselves too much in the quality of responses at times then they can be an inspirational source of learning. Maybe in time i'll improve to the posess the perfect map and no longer will my writings get 'raped'.

And, IMO, that "disheartening" can be a good thing. Some people learn new skills and want to share and help everyone! They are exactly like new converts to a religion or members of a cult who want to convince everyone that what they've discovered is a must for everyone everywhere. They forget that unwanted help is coercion.

As has been correctly pointed out, because we're alive we influence people all the time."Say, remember the time I helped you move? Well, I'm moving now and need some help. When can you come over to help me?" "Nah, I don't want to watch 'American Idol,' I want to watch 'Family Guy.' Okay?"

The problem with your question, "When do you consider it ethical to try and change a persons behaviour or thinking without their conscious awareness," whether you know it or not, is a clever re-definition of the situation. Since we, as humans, manipulate others all the time, it's hard to say, "never." The real question, IMO, should be "When do you consider it ethical
to use the unique and extraordinary skills you have learned to change a persons behaviour or thinking without their conscious awareness?" To that question I would easily answer "never." With great power comes great responsibility, and what you're describing is an abuse of that power/skill set.

Above, I gave a very personal response, so I feel justified, correctly or not, in make this a bit more personal. Based on your other questions, I don't think you're looking for general philosophical answers. Rather, I think you're looking for guidelines where you can push the boundaries and say that your abuse of personal responsibility is actually ethical and that others approve of your ethics. I have seen this type of "questioning" many times.

If a person is not conscious and you need to directly contact the unconscious in order to get it to work for the safety of the person, does this mean you now have the ethical "right" to do so?

IMO--no. You don't. It's not ethical to do so. Would I do it? Absolutely. Ethics, IMO, are guidelines. They are not morals set in stone hundreds of years ago. However, by recognizing that doing something without a person's conscious agreement is against good ethics, I accept the personal responsibility for my actions.

So, Mr. D., I will not give you permission to use your skills to manipulate others without their conscious permission. I will not absolve you of your personal responsibility over your breach of ethical behavior. I will not relieve you so you can say, "What I did was right. Everyone said so!"

I hesitate to make any reference to Hitler because of Godwin's Law (look it up). However, Hitler was wounded during WWI. If he had been mortally wounded but you knew a magical technique to save him, and you did so without his conscious permission (and not knowing his future), you might feel justified over helping a person because you knew better. And the result would have been a ravaged world with over forty million dead.

No. I do not give you permission. If you're asking about ethics you already know what you should and should not do and are looking for ways around it. Take responsibility for your own actions.

[Connie]

"Everything has a positive 'SELF' intention behind it."

Thanks, Doc. I thought that word, self, was obvious to all, attached and understood even when it's not typed in...but apparently not. :) I don't know how you'd link an intention to anything other than "self." Thanks for spelling it out.

[Poodle]

Would you mind if I used that word "self" in my textbook? I will, of course, give you proper acknowledgement. Anne

[Docresults]

Would you mind if I used that word "self" in my textbook? I will, of course, give you proper acknowledgement. Anne

You'll have to ask your Self.

On the other hand if you want to give me credit for noticing what the deeper structure is that is already there and self evident when seen, that's cool.

[Docresults]

Thanks, Doc. I thought that word, self, was obvious to all, attached and understood even when it's not typed in...but apparently not. :) I don't know how you'd link an intention to anything other than "self." Thanks for spelling it out.

Connie,

Often, I don't know about others and yet, it is useful for me to make the conscious distinction as sometimes identifying the loss performative helps clarify specifically where the responsible is and whom is being referred to.

Making the statement "every behavior has a positive intent behind it" can be confusing when looking at something where there are winners and losers or victims and villians. Identifying the loss performative usually clears up the confusion (at least for me).

(I thought) since I was writing about loss performatives I'd put one or two in paranthesis.

To Your Best,
Doc Houston

"In the beginning there is nothing and from nothing anything is possible." My Grampa Vetter

[Connie]

Well, since I never understood it as a source of confusion, you've educated me today!! :D Gracias, Doc!! When I speak of this concept in the future I will say: "positive self intention." And I'll think about other situations where I can add clarity to my writing.

[Terry (existing)]

Doc. a fun post, but very long for you isn;t it..;)
You ask who makes all these rules up, and I am going to stick my neck out and reply to that. I would say the basis for all such is found in the holy books, the Tora, the Bible, the Koran and so on. After that, mans experience comes into play, and he finds out what makes good sense to support the smooth running of his own life.
Why is it OK to make changes in someone untintentionally, but not with intent you ask? Well, what about free will? It is more important than life itself, as Don found out with his brother. Fact is, it all boils down to what makes sense to you and me, and what makes sense to the client in therapy situations.
The old saying "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is always in fashion for me, so I would ask, is anyone in disagreement with that? If not, you are bound to ask permission of a client before offering suggestions you are not sure they will find to their liking. Of course, you are also free to refuse to work with a client if you disagree or find the suggestions requested to be unacceptable to you. Free will is a two way street.... To do otherwise by the way, calls for a legal term, not a sacred one, it is called abuse of power, and is open to a prison term in some instances. Trust the old man to see the legal ramifications:)

[Poodle]

I consulted with Self, sub, un, inner, higher, Source, Universal and it just comes down to Doc gets the credit. Thank you!

[Docresults]

Terry,

Interesting how our maps work. Your comment that these rules can be found in the holy books, etc. got me thinking, the opposite can be found in the holy books as well as that is what got me asking, it just seems to depend on who is doing the proof texting.

I didn't know this topic was limited to working with a client. At least I didn't get that from reading Skip's post. I thought it was influencing change in another without their awareness and/or consent, which usually isn't a client and according to Skip's post it is OK if it is done unintentionally and it is not OK if it is done intentionally.

And you bring up a good point that would have gone well with all my other hoop questions... What about Free Willy (will)?

My questions are not about a therapy situation but about everyday life situations. If it is true or agreed that we can't help influencing and changing others just by existing, how and where do all those hoops of 'this is OK' and 'this is not OK' come from? If from holy books then fair I'll become a holy man and make declarations.

I was thinking about the admonition to "leave someone better off than you found them" (not holy book stuff but still a useful guideline). Who's determination of better off are we to use, ours or theirs. And why is it if I do it unintentionally without their permission it is OK and if I do it intentionally without their permission it is not OK? (I think this is on of those fire hoops.)

What about one of my major criteria for existence for myself? One of my criteria in like is to have an enjoyable, easy hassle free life. People that hang out with me wind up changing, in the beginning it was a conscious intentional process after all these years it no longer is conscious and intentional, it is unconscious and unintentional. It still gets the same results.

Based on Skip's proposed hoops (which may be the majority of people) and the holy books I'm not sure the labels of violating sanctity or your term abuse of power is the label I would use. So how is creating and designing my experiential reality abuse of power or violating sanctity?

If enjoyable, hassle free life is my sacred right (my holy sanctity, at least sacred to me) then anyone who comes into my experience and doesn't meet my criteria for enjoyable, hassle free life for me according to the proposed hoops would be violating my sanctity.

This brings up another question, in reference to Skip's post how does one choosing to be in a situation where they are changed intentionally or unintentionally effect the label or term violation of sanctity?

To Your Best,
Doc Houston


To handle all this I see us all with hundreds of ho-la-hoops attempting to keep them all going at the same time. Wouldn't it be nice to simply stand still let all the hoops fall to the ground, step over the hoops and go enjoy a cold one?

[MrDigital]

A very personal and passionate response and I thank you for making the effort to pass on your views....

[Terry (existing)]

Doc, you are correct, and I didn;t attempt to answer word for word. My intent was to locate were ideas on morals started, hence the books, and how we as humans have translated them to apply to daily life.
Over the years, I have noted that the contents of all self help books stem from the bible in the Western world. No idea what happens elsewere, but her is were most books originate anyway. Our ideas of right and wrong also stem from those same sources, even when we change them to suit our own comfort or intent:).
When I read Skip's comments, they resonated with me, probably because we do think alike in many ways. Obviously, if we differed in thinking, I would be attempting to discount his ideas in favour of my own, but even then, the comments of another give us food for thought if we choose to think, and if not, nothing else will change us either. You want my thoughts, you will accept them, you don;t, you will reject them if they are offered conciously, you have no protection if they are inadvertant, or intentionally covert..
As for the fact that the bible also shows the oposites, (or what we might term the negatives), that also is human is it not? You can love someone, yet still castigate them when you believe them to be wrong, and that in no way changes how you feel about them, or does it?
Skip and Don are invariably kind in their replies to posts, while I look at those same posts from a different viewpoint, and fault the poster. I see the waste of a fine mind due to lazyness, and that to me is an abomination. As for the bible and what it teaches us, it covers all things for all time. I doubt we can depend on it totally word for word under those circumstances, so we must use our own minds as well as reading what is there for our guidance, in the same way that we read a book authored by some very successful practitioner. What he or she got as results was due to their personality. We should not suppose we will be able to copy exactly what they achieved, yet by using the knowledge they pass on to us with understanding, we stand on their shoulders and do even better at times, simply because we are we and use that knowledge added to our own skills.
That is why I continue to castigate those who believe they can learn from books alone, and be successful. If one lacks the knowledge gained from understanding, one is prone to failure always, and usually will fail. We were not given five senses plus just because it seemed right. We got them to use them to be successful, and using only one won't cut it:cool:

[Connie]

When I read Skip's comments, they resonated with me Me, too! Pretty much without exception, I resonate with both of you. :D

[Docresults]

A very personal and passionate response and I thank you for making the effort to pass on your views....

I don't know if you were referring to me Doc or Don one of our kind moderators and yet because of the placement of your post I'm going to look at it as if it was directed to me.

My response was neither personal nor passionate it was only curious and exploring other possible views.

To Your Best,
Doc Houston

"Imagine how useful it is to know whether one is observing something real (grounded) or judging something based on one's opinion ungrounded." My Grampa Vetter

[MrDigital]

I don't know if you were referring to me Doc or Don one of our kind moderators and yet because of the placement of your post I'm going to look at it as if it was directed to me.

My response was neither personal nor passionate it was only curious and exploring other possible views.

Doc it was directed at Don I used the title box. However, I found your curious explorations very interesting and comforting.

A smooth sea never made a skilled mariner !

[Docresults]

Me, too! Pretty much without exception, I resonate with both of you. :D

OK, since I'm in the mood. Me, three! I resonate with you guys and the opposite some times at the same time.

Like for example...

If we can not help influencing others and we influence intentionally and unintentionally, and then we bring in the concept of free will...

I understand where the idea of intentional change without permission goes against free will but does the unintentional change negate (or violate) free will or does free will only apply to human conscious awareness and not to the other aspects of consciousness (sub, un, super)? How is that? According to whom? Who's free will is allowed to be violated? (It seems to me, many times when the question of free will comes up it is in reference to preferring one individual's free will over another individual's free will.)

And just out of curiosity which holy or sacred text addresses this?

And if there is a standard outside oneself (holy or sacred text) how can it be an individual's free will? If there is something one is not free to do then free will would be conditional will, Yes?

If we are going to look at this it might be useful to get as accurate as we can.

To Your Best,
Doc Houston

"Grounded assessments contribute to our ability to observe; ungrounded assessments contribute to our ability to judge and evaluate. Focusing on outcomes allows one to calibrate grounded assessments in relationship to what one wants and move in that direction." My Grampa Vetter

[MrDigital]

Poodle:
regarding your co-worker. What did she say to you that made you believe it was a visual thing and perhaps not an auditory one? If I can ever teach anything to anyone, it is to be VERY AWARE of the other person's language to the 1000th degree. It could just be one little word that will aid you in leading them out of a problem. Yes. So simple that you only need to change one word - no visualization done by you or blowing out sounds.

Sometimes it is just that easy but as of yet you have not reached that point.

Sometimes It may be best to assess the post before you reach the conclusion that there was an attempt at therapy going on with the trainee accountant. Some times intelligent people overestimate intelligence and miss some of the smaller points that are going on.

[Poodle]

[quote=MrDigital]I was talking one of my staff today who is in training to be a Chartered Accountant and I asked her opinion of one of the Senior Chartered Accountants. Her 'state' change instantly and she explained that she found him very condascending to the extent that he made her make mistakes and un-nerved her whenever she had to deal with him.

I Said to her that years ago I had the same experience with one of my bosses and he made me feel like I was worthless and even the slightest job became a difficulty under his watchful eye. Tha man was a challenge to me in a way I was unsure about dealing and over a period of time I learned how to deal with him. I said that a lot of my successes though were down to him and people like him because once you see them for who they really are they are motivators of the highest order.

I told her to look at her situation as a challenge. When you need to speak to him imagine him blown up 5x his cheeks puffed up about to explode. Pale him into insignificance, even imagine blowing him away because he means nothing to you. I said you can still respect him for his abilities but you needn't respect his manner or his venom.

mmmm, "see him", "imagine him blown up 5x" Could it have been something you wrote perhaps? Would your little story have worked if the lady didn't like the boss' voice and the tone of that voice made her feel. Perhaps it was a V-A loop resulting in a negative K which would make "your" experience as related to her invalid. See? LOL! Pood :)

[skip]

"If we can not help influencing others and we influence intentionally and unintentionally, and then we bring in the concept of free will..."

Since you cannot help but influence, both intentionally and unintentionally ... you have little 'free will' in that regard.

And since you are constantly being influenced, intentionally and unintentionally, at an unconscious level ... you have very little 'free will', in that regard as well.

In terms of influiencing others, a conscientious person will endeavor to be as good at, and as precise as they can, so as to limit the damage they might do to others.

In terms of your own self, choice comes in, in choosing how you wish to unconsciously respond, when situations occurr, and 'teaching yourself' to respond in the way you wish, as opposed to the way you were randomly programed.

NLP will teach you to do both.

Those who do not learn some technology, to gain some control, over their unconscious responses, are the ping pong balls of this universe.

Do you recall the weekend Carmine had us down for the 'apprentice only' training, the one I refer to as the 'lost' weekend?

One part I do remember of that weekend, (and I remember damn little of it) was Carmine calibrating our responses to criticism, and then rewriting our responses to be more flexable and creative when criticised.

Prior to that I responded angrily and defensively to criticism. Now I still respond, but that response takes me to a relaxed, creative place, where I feel secure and confident.

THAT is what allows for choice in my further response.

THAT is where I now have some free will.

Where before I only went to defensive and responded from that limited perspective.

I have refined Carmine's installation somewhat since then, but I have always remembered the lesson.

We all operate primarily unconsciously, and in that sense we have little free will. Our unconscious response will dictate the state from which we choose our options in any given situation.

AH! BUT!!!

Using NLP and other change methedologies, we can choose in advance the mental state we will be responding from 'in the moment'.

As you know from experience, THAT makes all the difference in the world.

cheers,

skip

ps The other day, on the phone, you were describing Jerry Stocking's definition of enlightnment. If you were to have a really good handle on the nature of the state, what prevents you ...

[Connie]

"Ping pong balls of the universe." Very, very, apt! And not a pleasant state to be in.

I was in class, today, and brought up again this question of ethics regarding "covert NLP." I got the knee jerk defense of: "Oh, we all influence everybody anyway, so what's the difference?" Not a good enough answer, Bub. I just want people to think about it and I did make them do that.

[Charlie]

"If we can not help influencing others and we influence intentionally and unintentionally, and then we bring in the concept of free will..."

Since you cannot help but influence, both intentionally and unintentionally ... you have little 'free will' in that regard.

And since you are constantly being influenced, intentionally and unintentionally, at an unconscious level ... you have very little 'free will', in that regard as well.

In terms of influiencing others, a conscientious person will endeavor to be as good at, and as precise as they can, so as to limit the damage they might do to others.

In terms of your own self, choice comes in, in choosing how you wish to unconsciously respond, when situations occurr, and 'teaching yourself' to respond in the way you wish, as opposed to the way you were randomly programed.

NLP will teach you to do both.

Those who do not learn some technology, to gain some control, over their unconscious responses, are the ping pong balls of this universe........
A fascinating response.

Perhaps suggesting that the sliding scale of ping-pong-ed-ness (so to speak) is in some way equivalent to a sliding scale of free will?

Do you recall the weekend Carmine had us down for the 'apprentice only' training, the one I refer to as the 'lost' weekend?

No, I don't.

Was I there, of my own free will, or did I only imagine being there, of my own free will? I wonder.

One part I do remember of that weekend, (and I remember damn little of it) was Carmine calibrating our responses to criticism, and then rewriting our responses to be more flexable and creative when criticised.

Prior to that I responded angrily and defensively to criticism. Now I still respond, but that response takes me to a relaxed, creative place, where I feel secure and confident.

Ah, in that case I definitely wasn't there.

:)

Charlie (still ping-pong-ing around, but slightly more aware of it than before...)

[Docresults]

And since you are constantly being influenced, intentionally and unintentionally, at an unconscious level ... you have very little 'free will', in that regard as well.

If this be the case then why the emotive words like "violate sanctity" in the earlier post?

In terms of influencing others, a conscientious person will endeavor to be as good at, and as precise as they can, so as to limit the damage they might do to others.

Again, who determines what is damage? Damage for one person's map usually isn't damage for another's. (the assignment of cause is often not agreed upon.)

In terms of your own self, choice comes in, in choosing how you wish to unconsciously respond, when situations occur, and 'teaching yourself' to respond in the way you wish, as opposed to the way you were randomly programed.

NLP will teach you to do both.

Those who do not learn some technology, to gain some control, over their unconscious responses, are the ping pong balls of this universe.

As I agree with you here I'm still curious how all this sets with the post you made earlier about "violating sanctity" and "no exceptions". I'm not seeing where these hoops work with what you've written here. (It could be I'm just dense or it could be I'm not dense enough.)

Prior to that I responded angrily and defensively to criticism. Now I still respond, but that response takes me to a relaxed, creative place, where I feel secure and confident.

Beside Carmine's use of NLP/HPE a simply way is to take criticism and praise and integrate them using Deep PEAT 3 so as to have a full range of responses.

We all operate primarily unconsciously, and in that sense we have little free will. Our unconscious response will dictate the state from which we choose our options in any given situation.

AH! BUT!!!

Using NLP and other change methodologies, we can choose in advance the mental state we will be responding from 'in the moment'.

And based on your earlier post choosing in advance the mental state we will be responding from which will intentionally influence and change another is violating their sanctity. (That's the part I don't get.)

As you know from experience, THAT makes all the difference in the world.

I agree with you it does make a big difference and that is what got me playing with your original post that had such emotive, authoritarian, cut and dried this is the way it is, no exceptions language in it.

ps The other day, on the phone, you were describing Jerry Stocking's definition of enlightenment. If you were to have a really good handle on the nature of the state, what prevents you ...

Other than patterns I'm not sure what prevents one... It isn't getting into the state that is that difficult (I do it from time to time) it is staying in the state.

To Your Best,
Doc Houston

"Our judgments and opinions influence the quality of our lives. I we think they are true; we forget they are judgments and treat them as if they are facts. For getting that we created the ungrounded assessment (judgment) often results in suffering for self and others." My Grampa Vetter

[Merlin]

Well said Connie :)

[Merlin]

I change people daily.
I wear a ver revealing...
Smile.
I share it with everyone I encounter.

Where I draw the line for change is consciousness/conscious bypass.
Is the person able to be consciously aware of what I am doing?

[Merlin]

MrDigital,
You are really skrewed up and need to change your god complex.

Would it be ok for me to force my map on you?
Maybe with a few well chosen metaphors and a few embedded commands?

[Merlin]

Well said Terry

[MrDigital]

As a matter of interest Merlin, how specifically did you come to that conclusion?

Based on?

And have you learned anything other than that what which you have learned?

Regards

MrDigital :)



“Why Are Fire Engines Red?”
They have four wheels and eight men
four plus eight is twelve
twelve inches make a ruler
a ruler is Queen Elizabeth
Queen Elizabeth sails the seven seas
the seven seas have fish
the fish have fins
The Finns hate the Russians
the Russians are red
Fire engines are always rushin’
So they’re red.

[pmdigi]

did you mean ".....consciousness/unconsciousness bypass."?

[Stoic]

It's funny how so many people try and manipulate others to not manipulate. Huh?
I think thats why NLP doesn't say Manipluation is bad, it says Ecology is good!

[Poodle]

You really don't want to tangle with Merlin. She has studied all over the whole world and on top of that she has a magic wand that will turn you into a toad. When she says you have a God complex, the correct answer is: Yes, Ma'am you are ever so correct so how do you suggest I could best get over it.

Sorry sweetie. Not all fire engines are red. Ours are green. The Finnish people no longer hate the Russians as I just spent a week with them and people from Russia too. The Russians are no longer "red" and it's been waaaayyyyy toooo long ago that either Elizabeth ruled the seas.

First learning lesson - we are all of this earth and we are the earth. We belong to this planet and it belongs to us. Governments may quibble but people are always looking for the best way to work with other people. NLP is not about techniques, it's about attitude.

[Merlin]

I meant conscious awareness or
bypassing of the conscious awareness such as hypnosis,
embedded commands, etc.

I prefer the person have a conscious choice.

Until the person sits in my chair.
Then, after that conscious choice, all bets are off.

[skip]

And since you are constantly being influenced, intentionally and unintentionally, at an unconscious level ... you have very little 'free will', in that regard as well.

If this be the case then why the emotive words like "violate sanctity" in the earlier post?

Because I wanted to bring out how invasive people can be, knowing and unknowing.And I wanted people to understand that it IS a violation of sanctity. If injury results, intention is almost irrelevent.

In terms of influencing others, a conscientious person will endeavor to be as good at, and as precise as they can, so as to limit the damage they might do to others.

Again, who determines what is damage? Damage for one person's map usually isn't damage for another's. (the assignment of cause is often not agreed upon.)

Not interested in lawyering games Houston. It was a straightforward statement. Damage is a subjective assessment and can be made by either party in a communication.

In terms of your own self, choice comes in, in choosing how you wish to unconsciously respond, when situations occur, and 'teaching yourself' to respond in the way you wish, as opposed to the way you were randomly programed.

NLP will teach you to do both.

Those who do not learn some technology, to gain some control, over their unconscious responses, are the ping pong balls of this universe.

As I agree with you here I'm still curious how all this sets with the post you made earlier about "violating sanctity" and "no exceptions". I'm not seeing where these hoops work with what you've written here. (It could be I'm just dense or it could be I'm not dense enough.)

The former, and I suspect on purpose. You can be more selective about how and to what purpose you affect others, or you can be a bull in a china shop.

And based on your earlier post choosing in advance the mental state we will be responding from which will intentionally influence and change another is violating their sanctity. (That's the part I don't get.)

Lets use the example. After being criticised, I could be responding and affecting someone as I respond from my former defensive and unresourceful state, or I can affect someone responding from a relaxed and comfortable state. I'll leave it to you to make the subjective decision as to whether that is benificial or not.

I agree with you it does make a big difference and that is what got me playing with your original post that had such emotive, authoritarian, cut and dried this is the way it is, no exceptions language in it.

Excellent you heard it the way I intended. :)

... it is staying in the state.


Sure about that????

skip

[Connie]

...your original post that had such emotive, authoritarian, cut and dried this is the way it is, no exceptions language in it.

I love it when Skip tells it like it is, because my is and his is are the same is and he expresses everything so wonderfully well! He can be authoritarian with me anytime. ;)

[skip]

"He can be authoritarian with me anytime."

Ooohhhhh Baby!

Houston is just niggling with me, which he is welcome to do at any time. After all he is one of Cooper's best friends.

If you read about the "Law of Attraction" or any of Houston's missives about it, you will quickly see the similarity in the way it works and the way I have been describing how we affect others.

In essence the law of attraction says, 'what we focus on we will achieve'. And often we 'achieve' the unintended.

No free will there, except in what we might choose to focus on.

Houston and I were talking the other day, and I remarked about those folks who tend towards the vegan persuasion. I was speculating on how they seemed to be sick all the time, or at least sicker, or complaining about feeling sick, more than us average Joes, who regularly ingest the poisons they spend their existance avoiding. "Oh I feel terrible, there must have been some meat stock in that organic mushroom pate ..."

Houston aptly pointed out, that is because sick (avoidance) is what they focus on all the time. That if you are constantly focused on how different things will hurt you, the message focused on is the hurt, and voila, the 'Law of Attraction".

Now I agree with this. It is the 'Law of Attraction' in action, IMO.

Same as in interacting with others. I cannot help but affect them, just as I casnnot help but get results.

I can choose, more or less, how, I will affect others.

Houston is not so incongruent as to hold with the Law of Attraction and not with what I am saying about affecting others.

He is just niggling about the WAY in which I stated it.

And That is fair. Because I did use very emotive words.

Deliberately so.

See we are constantly 'assaulted' with stuff. Houston might say that by my watching the NCAA finals last night, I attracted all those commercials I was forced to endure. And he might be right! ;)

But I wanted to make it very plain, that when you interact with others, you ARE affecting them, mostly on a relatively superficial level, but more often than we like to believe on a very profound level.

Now you may have little control over what you get "presented" with. But you can have control over how it affects you, and ultimately how you choose to respond.

AND you can take responsibility for how you affect others, by taking control over your comunication.

Is it perfect, or do I claim to do it perfectly?

Not yet.

cheers,

skip

[Connie]

Everything's a song lately. :) "Thrumming my...(something)...with his words.." I guess I'm resonating again. :D

Houston's IS is my is, too, especially as regards the Law of Attraction.

[Docresults]

See we are constantly 'assaulted' with stuff. Houston might say that by my watching the NCAA finals last night, I attracted all those commercials I was forced to endure. And he might be right! ;)
skip


I was wondering how come so many commercials myself. We must have been co-attracting.

[Merlin]

I attract men
It's more fun ;)

[skip]

Fun for whom?

[Merlin]

I attract men
It's more fun

Fun for whom?

Everyone involved.
Those I attract are ummm...
well rewarded.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c344/Myhrrhleine2/Sexy.gif