politically correct for you're a *****er

Studying NLP or hypnosis it usually gives an extra dimension to the appreciation of language. NLPers become increasingly aware of embedded commands, hypnotic suggestions or unwitting implications that slip into their own and other people's language.

This is great. It allows for really precise communication, sometimes...

On the other hand since some NLPers can be relentlessly positive there can also be a shadow side to this. Intelligent, sensitive aware people who are still often human in some of the most petty ways. So just like the euphemisms used in Human Resources or the military, I have observed some interesting ways of hiding barbs in NLP based language.

Below are some examples of the correct NLP way to say something, and its translation into something more... sincere

Not all NLPers do this, and not allo f the time. But when they do you can usually tell by the slightly forced quality of the smile they put on while speaking.

'Your map is different from mine' = 'You're wrong!'

'You're map is really quite unusual' = 'You're mad'

'Our values do not align' = 'I don't like you'

'If what you're doing isn't working, try something different' = 'Please, please, please do something else!'

'I realise that you have a positive intention' = 'Do that one more time and I'll punch you'

'You cannot not communicate' = 'You are rude'

'The meaning of the behaviour is the response it elicits' = 'It's your fault'

'There's no failure, only feedback' = 'You screwed up.'

'I detect a lack of congruence' = 'I don't trust you.'

'You have a highly developed capacity for deletion' = 'Pay attention, stupid.'

If you catch soemone doing this challenge them with the translation 'You said xxxx, don't you mean yyyy.'

Done just right the effect is delicious. As the person squirms, and their smile becomes a little stiffer, casually add in

'Perhaps you didn't mean yyyy at all, it's just...the meaning of the communication is the response it elicits.'

Knowing a cup of tea

Photo Nice Cup of Tea by snappysmashingbloke

This is another thought experiment. I like this one as a way of getting less certain about how much we know. I like being less certain about how much I know, because it loosens up my mental models, and helps keep me enjoying life in fresh, new ways. Loosening mental models is also a good exercise in developing new ones - also known as learning.


Simply take a household object (a cup, a pillow, a book...) and spend 20-30 minutes noticing everything about it you possibly can. Look at it from all angles, touch, listen to and smell it (taste it?).

Do you think you know everything about it yet? Are there parts that you cannot see - can your senses really catch everything about it?

Are there details too small, too subtle, too hidden to notice? If you think you know everything then ask yourself this...

Would a dog/electron microscope/dolphin or amoeba have a different knowledge of this object than you?

Can you know everything about where it came from and how it was made?

In which case can you still say you know everything about it?

And if you can't know everything about something as simple as a cup what can you be certain that you really know?....

Thought Experiments

A thought experiment can include any deliberate application of the imagination with the aim of testing a theory.

Einstein used thought experiments in developing the theory of relativity - he imagined he was sitting on a photon travelling at the speed of light - and the consequences that would have for perception.

Nikola Tesla the inventor who in the late 19th and early twentieth centuries discovered and designed much of the technology that we take for granted today (accumulating over 700 patents on the way) used a sophisticated form of thought experiment. Before building a machine in his laboratory he would construct in his imagination, run it and see if it developed any problems or unanticipated effects.

You can choose to think of NLP's presuppositions as thought experiments. Also 'as if' frame statements can serve as thought experiments. You can ask what would it be like if ....

I've described a few thought experiments in the posts below. Try them out if you like, and you can write about your experiences too. If you have any thought experiments that you like then please share them...

Getting into your Skull

Knowing a cup of tea

Getting into your Skull

Photo Frazier Mtn~ 12/09/05 by FrazierMtnMom

In the Norse creation myth three brothers Odin, Vili and Ve made the earth from the body of a giant called Ymir. They made the sky from his skull and the clouds from his brains. Norse stories do not skimp on blooody anatomical detail.

Neuroscience suggest that what we perceive as being outside of ourselves is actually a model constructed by our minds. In other words everything under the sky is actually inside our skulls...

In this thought experiment try to remain conscious of this idea. Whenever you experience something as outside of you remember that you are creating the representation of that thing in the space between your ears.

Do this for a day and notice what happens.

Then as the zen saying goes, you may be able to drink the Pacific ocean in a single gulp.

Photo: Pacific Ocean by shesnuckinfuts

Underemployed Coaches

ruby slippers and phone by gwENvision

I do not know if you have noticed, but the world is full of underemployed coaches. Go to almost any networking meeting and you are sure to meet one or two coaches a little too eager to explain how you can be and achieve so much more.

I am curious about this. It is partly a result of all the hype. There has been so much hype about coaching. In France the word hardly means anything. If you are not sure what the word for a coach is in French it is le coach (and yes there is also le coaching). It covers everything from personal trainer, to personal shopper, with some potential for psychologist thrown in.

I blame the training organisations. For years now training organisations have been telling people ‘Coaching is the fastest growing profession in the world…’ with all kinds of promises of being able to earn hundreds per hour while sitting in slippers at home and asking open questions on the phone.

What happens is that people take a training, get hooked on the heady rush of watching people become aware of their deeper desires. Then they get business cards made, some really comfy slippers and a new phone, and then….

…then they find it is not so easy. They head to their local networking breakfast and meet a bunch of other coaches with cards and whose slipper softened feet are struggling with their business shoes. Eavesdrop on the conversation between them and you'll hear allusions to abundance, cooperation, and it 'not being a zero sum game'. Watch the body language, you'll see their eyes scanning for the signs of eligible clients and their thighs tense to pounce.

The next step for these people is to do more courses, to unleash some more potential. Some coaches end up taking so many courses that they decide to teach courses and sell the same attractive dream of slippers and phones that they fell for however many trainings ago. In a gold rush the people who get rich are the ones selling shovels.

But isn’t that what we are doing at NLP School Europe?

Well we do talk about coaching, and we do train people who are coaches. Quite a few coaches come to us because they recognise that NLP underpins many coaching training courses and and they want to better understand the core of their technical base.

In fact I really like training coaches. They often understand what we are doing very quickly, and come back with great stories of how they have applied NLP with their clients.

The difference is we want people to apply NLP I their lives, not make NLP their life. We do not want our trainees to pack in the day job and set up as coaches. We are selling tools, not necessarily a new career.

Here is an analogy. Some years I remember a friend saying that in an ideal world there would be no Green party. All political parties would have integrated an ecological, sustainable agenda. Asking a politician if they were green should be like asking a fish if they could swim. Pretty self evident, and not really a question worth asking.

Back then the sustainable agenda was mostly talked about by people with long hair, and dismissed by people in politics.

Today we are closer to the ideal situation. If you ask pretty much any politician if they are green they will answer 'yes'. The difference between the politicians and the fish is that the fish are telling the truth. Watch the body language, the fish really can swim.

Actually that probably applies to most of us. When was the last time you checked your ecological footprint?

A bit of my own agenda creeping in there, again. Skip over it if you find it clashes with your own worldview. In another few years it will seem very dated anyway. At least that is what I am working for.

I believe that coaching is a useful profession. The ability to work with people in a respectful, compassionate ways is very important. The capacity to look to look at what is important, in a deep rather than superficial way is also vital to our society. An ability to integrate our values with our day to day actions and effectiveness is equally important. All of these are the promises of coaching.

But the ideal is that they would be integrated into our lives. That we would not need coaches for this, any more than we would need a green party.

So whether you want to be a coach or not there is something valuable to be had from coaching training.

For all the underemployed coaches, some of them will keep plugging at it and find a way to get the clients that you want.

Some coaches will hang up their slippers and go back to what they did before - but differently. Others will discover actually that what they really want to do is not coach, but something much more juicy, at least to them.

If you've just met an underemployed coach, and think they may have something to offer, but possibly overpriced,then haggle with them.

They could probably do with the practise. Some of them are not so sure of their skills yet. Give them a chance, they might well be very good. If they do a good job then they may well have created a regular client and a source of referrals. If they do not do a good job you will probably at least have enjoyed some interesting conversations.

For the underemployed coaches among you, haggle back! Do not give your coaching away for free. Make sure you get an exchange which is satisfying to you, even if not financially.

How do you know if it is worth taking on an underemployed coach. It is probably not good to do it on the basis that you feel sorry for them. Better to do it on the basis that there is something that you've always wanted to do, but never have yet. Perhaps there is a nagging sense that you could do better in some way, or some kind of difficult situation at work or at home that seems stuck.

If that is true for you then the next question is to ask which kind of coach you would like? Perhaps you will decide prefer the investment in an experienced well employed coach with fixed rates.

Alternatively you may decide to sponsor new talent. You may prefer someone underemployed, inexperienced and negotiable. In which case just head to a networking meeting and watch the body language.

Shadows and Light

Shadows and light: photo by barcalunacy

Here's a double bind for you. NLP is a set of powerful tools that can be applied to setting goals and accomplishing what you want in life. In NLP we apply the concept "a map is not the territory", that our understanding of reality is only a model, and not reality itself.

So what happens if we start applying our wonderful NLP techniques on the basis of a map that is severely flawed? What will that result in?

For example someone who as a habit uses force to resolve problems, physical or emotionally. If they encounter a problem where they feel weak, in their map of the world they will seek a method to be stronger. So they then apply NLP to be even stronger in that situation.... Seems doomed to failure doesn't it?

What about the inverse. Someone who always yields to others, deals with problems by being more generous, more sensitive, more giving. If they find themselves in a difficult situation, perhaps where someone is taking advantage of them in some way what will they apply NLP to. Probably being more giving, less selfish. The result?

Now let's get silly. Imagine someone sayig "I will use NLP to get over my hangovers quicker. I have at least 5-6 hangovers a week, so it should save me lots of pain."

This makes NLP a tool to dig yourself deeper into a habit. A bit like the people who drive faster and more recklessly because of the heightened sense of security that modern car technology offers.

What can we do about a paradox like this?

I have two kinds of answers.

If you believe that there is a force of evolution guiding us (whether internal from natural selection, or omnipresent and spiritual) then eventually, however man bad decisions we make are, the dice are loaded that we will make a good one eventually. So you do ot actually have to do anything.

This is OK as a stop gap, but it doesn't say much for our capacity to apply intelligence. I also sometimes think of as an abdication of authority. But on the up side it is an application of the idea that "the universe is basically a friendly place." Which I find much mor optimistic and useful than the opposite.

Alternatively we can develop practises that are designed to show up our blindspots, the parts of ourselves that lie in shadow outside of our awareness.

One way we can do this is to ask people we trust to tell us what we appear to be blind to. Of course we could still choose people who share our blind spots. The strong person above might choose his brutal barbarian colleagues, and the generous person might choose people with similar patterns, and the hangover man might choose his drinking buddies. So in this case it's good to choose people who are very different from you.

The danger then is that you get angry and fall out with those people because they are obviously stupid, and they have got it wrong. You know what it is like when someone asks you for advice and then does not like what you tell them....

There are also a number of other practises that you can do alone.

Ken Wilber of the Integral Institute has created the 3-2-1 Shadow process tm. I'm not sure I should describe it because it has a tm after it, and I've never seen it written down anywhere publicly.

On the other hand it has a great deal in common with Robert Dilt's Meta-Mirror . The Meta-Mirror was conceived to work with difficult relationships by moving through three perceptual positions. 1st position, me as myself. 2nd position, me as an other person, and 3rd position which is an outsider, or fly on the wall. It is a great pattern with a lot built into it, which is why we often teach it on our NLP taster days.

In Ken's process the emphasis is on working with a part of yourself that you have a problem with, rather than another person. Having said that he considers difficult people on the outside projections of your own internal "shadow" - parts of yourself that you have not been able to integrate.

A third practise that I think is useful is Core Transformation which was created by Connirae and Tamara Andreas. It is a very elegant process for appreciating an integrating those parts of us that we do not like. It involves identifying an unwanted behaviour or reaction, then moving up a chain of positive intentions to core state. The core state is extremely pleasant to experience, and if you are a coach a great privilege to witness. It is one of the reasons I like to use it, and variations of it in my coaching practise.

With any of these techniques when they are practised honestly there is an integration, the sense of reclaiming a some part of yourself. It creates a sense of greater peace within a given situation. It also leads to an increased range of choices, in terms of both state, and behaviour.

To use these techniques as part of a practise you first need to identifying something that you consider irritating, frightening, otherwise unpleasant. you could perceive it as internal to you, or externally - a shadow. It could be a person, a character in a dream, or an emotion.

Ken recommends that people practise this twice a day. Certainly it is something that is best done on a regular basis. That way it becomes a habit. It gets easier to get curious about people or events that trouble you, rather than angry or hostile or depressed. Curious because you know that there is something interesting to be learned, rather something evil to be defeated.

Your map may never be fully accurate, so these practises do not fully answer the issue of how best to apply NLP, but they do go some way to creating wiser decisions.

One of the good things about it is that it is easy to start. Just ask what do you find most irritating in yourself or in others?