jump to navigation

What Do You Want? – NLP and Outcomes June 6, 2008

Posted by Mark T. Market in Reflections.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Deciding What You Want

Everything we do has a reason behind it. We always want something, although we are not always clear what it is. This applies right down to the most mundane levels. When you are hungry, your goal is to eat, when you are tired, your goal is to sleep. The streets are full of people, walking, driving, catching buses, trains and airplanes, and all of them are going somewhere for a reason.

So the presupposition of Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) is:

Human behaviour is purposeful.

What do you want? You have long-term and short-term goals, these things you want and need: possessions, skills, work, relationships, states of mind, ways of working or being. NLP calls these outcomes — results that you want to create in the world. An outcome is much more specific than a goal. You only have an outcome when you know what you will see, hear and feel when you have it. Goals are what you want. Outcomes are what you create. Setting outcomes is the key to becoming the dominant creative force in your life.

Outcomes

We fail to achieve our outcomes for three main reasons:

  • they may not be realistically achievable
  • they may be insufficientl motivating
  • and, although they are desired, they may not be desirable from a wider viewpoint

To turn a goal into an outcome, to make it realistic, achievable, motivating and desirable, you have to explore it from different points of view.

Make sure it is expressed in the positive
This means moving towards what you want, not away from what you do not want. To turn a negative outcome into a positive, ask “What would this goal do for me if I got it?” or “What do I want instead?”

Determine what you have to do and what others have to do
Have as much of the outcome under your direct control as possible. If others need to act for you, think how you can arrange a “win-win outcome”. We can achieve little without others and unless yu think out the consequences from their viewpoint so you both win, they may not help you again. Ask yourself, “What do I need to do to ensure others want to help me achieve my outcome?”

Make the outcome as specific as possible
Imagine it in as much detail as you can. How long will it take? Set a realistic time limit, with an exact day if possible. Where and when do you want this goal? In which places, situations or parts of your life do you want it? With whom do you want the goal and with whom do you not want it? The more specific your outcome, the more real it becomes and the more you will notice opportunities to achieve it.

Be clear about your evidence for achievement
How will you know you have achieved your outcome? The evidence is through your five senses. What exactly will you see? What exactly will you hear? What exactly will you feel? What is the last piece of evidence before you get the outcome? For example, evidence for being more healthy might be that you will be the correct weight, with an improved complexion, and others will notice the difference.
You cannot achieve an outcome, or learn anything, without feedback and the sooner the feedback comes the better. The longer the time between action and feedback. the harder it is to learn and adjust.

Consider the resources available to achieve this outcome
Obvious resources are money and material possessions that you can use directly. People are resources. They may be able to help you directly or as role models. You can also use historical or fictional characters as role models. Personal qualities and skills are also resources. If you need certain qualities, think about how you could develop them.

Consider the consequences of achieving your outcome
Think of your outcome from different points of view. One of the best ways to explore the consequences is to take second position with significant other people. How does your outcome appear from their point of view. How does it affect them? How do they feel about it? When you think like this you will gain trust and help.
What else would happen? What will you have to give up by getting what you want? Also think about the time, money and the effort, both mental and physical, you will need to invest. Is the goal worth it?

Recognize the positive by-products of your present behaviour
Invariably the present situation will have some good qualities. How can you incorporate them into your outcome, so that you keep what is good about your present circumstances?

How does your outcome relate to your larger plans?
Your outcome is likely to be part of a larger outcome. Relate it to your other plans and outcomes. What does it help to achieve and why is this important?
When you connect your outcome to your values and life plans, it will be motivating. It is difficult to commit to an outcome that seems unimportant and disconnected from the rest of your life.

What smaller outcomes may be part of this outcome?
Your outcome may be large and unwieldy as it stands. There may be obstacles. You may need to break it down into a series of smaller, more manageable outocmes. Decide on the right sequence in which to do them, then begin.

Lastly, does this outcome feel right to you
Is it congruent with your sense of self, your identity? Is it you? If it is, take your insights and form an action plan, including one thing you can do immediately. Unless you act, the outcome will remain a dream.

from NLP, O’ Connor & McDermott

Cognitive Dissonance – Part 6: What Do You Believe? May 31, 2008

Posted by Mark T. Market in Cognitive Dissonance.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

Our beliefs are the foundations of our existence. In the simplest terms, we believe we are alive, so we strive to live and better our lives.

In the study of dying patients, many doctors have said that those patients who die first are those people who are resigned to death, and admitted to themselves that they will die or want to die. For some reason, that intention manifests itself, more than any other physiological condition or physical trauma.

Consider for instance, this story of a man who claims to have seen himself in the future:

What’s your first impulse upon hearing this tale? To understand or to disprove? To accept or to reject?

Studying cognitive dissonance is a toss-up between these two things: what we believe and what we cannot accept–and our attempt to bridge these two things.

Since I posted something about AIDS recently, see how you deal with cognitive dissonance on these two ideas:

  • There is a low incidence of condom use in the Philippines.
  • There is a low incidence of AIDS in the Philippines.

Check out this article about the above statements and try to check how your brain responds to the informative stimuli.

More cognitive dissonance to follow.

Happiness is a Verb With No Tense April 19, 2008

Posted by Mark T. Market in True Stories.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

In the opening sequence to the movie “The Air I Breathe”, Forrest Whitaker’s character sets the tone with his very sober soliloquy:

“Sometimes, being totally fucked can be a liberating experience.”

It’s definitely therapeutic, I would add–that experience of having everything unravel–presuming you survive the experience. “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.” People sometimes quote Murphy’s Law when situations like these happen.

Despite one’s best plans, there’s always the odd chance of an absolute failure.

Is it really liberating? I doubt this is the first thing on people’s minds when they experience absolute failure first hand, however the liberation is probably best felt in “hindsight”.

Ahh, there’s the that problem again: time. Hindsight implies that you look back “in time” at yourself during another point in your life, and then mull over your experiences, maybe embellish a detail or two, but generally pick off some lessons you can learn from your “totally getting fucked” episode.

At this point, it will be instructive to bring up the story of a dear friend, who years ago, found herself in such a situation. I promised I’d never write about her, but bearing for a moment on the illusion of time, she is by now a far removed individual from herself several years ago. In short that bastard “time” allows me to say: who she was, is no longer who she IS.

So by writing about who she was, I’m techically still keeping my promise. Thank you “time” for letting me off the hook. Just to be technically on the safe side, I’ll keep her anonymous anyway.

The story is actually not technically a long one–although at the “time” I was witnessing it, it seemed to drag on forever. It begins in a chatroom, where two avid chatters Sarah and William meet online, and decide to meet (in by now what is commonly known as an E.B. or eyeball). As events would have it, the two become romantically inclined and proceed to have an occasionally rocky but suprisingly (at least to their friends) solid relationship.

At this point in “time”, both are freshly minted from school, Sarah from business school is slowly getting oriented with the twists and turns of the corporate arena, while William is finishing his aeronautics degree and eventually enters flight school, in preparation for his preferred occupation as a commercial pilot.

As the two mature in their chosen careers, and as niceties would have it, spend less and less time together, the subject of marriage, and a more long-term commitment begin popping more and more often into the picture. Three years pass, and by this time William has pursued a full-time job as a cargo plane pilot in a middle-eastern aviation company, and has not physically seen Sarah in nearly eighteen months.

One day, Sarah in a fit of boredom and loneliness decides to call William’s portable phone just out of the blue. Her boredom quickly fades into despair as a woman’s voice answers.

And this is it for Sarah, the point alluded to by Whitaker: “being totally fucked.”

It’s a quick blur for the poor girl. Within two hours she learns that everything she knew for years was wrong. William was no pilot, he flunked out of school years ago (even while they were dating), he was not flying cargo aircraft in the middle east as much as he was actually physically hauling cargo himself, and he was not the guy who was scared of marriage commitment that frustrated Sarah’s yearning all these years…

In fact he was getting married. To another woman: a flight attendant who was paying for his bills abroad.

I’ll skip the more sordid portion of Sarah’s story at this point and return to the “present time” where we find a different woman. By now Sarah has quit her old job and relocated to North America, where she has pursued further studies. She has successfully earned permanent resident status in her new home and is ready to pursue a new life and new horizons. No one in her immediate circle (including me) knows what happened to William since the grand revelation years ago, and no one has made any attempts to find out either.

So all in all, all’s well that ends well. Being totally fucked can be liberating indeed. Sarah has proven that wonderfully, and she has all my heartfelt congratulations.

Now I can announce what has made this post possible: Three interesting things occur at precisely the same “time”:

  • I read about the wonderful development in Sarah’s life which I just shared above,
  • I’m watching Forrest Whitaker utter that cool line above while watching Air I Breathe on DVD,
  • and I catch an interesting glimpse on a friend’s page while browsing my Friendster account.

On the left, the image on the person’s page, and the following is her shoutout: 

“Why do I keep hitting myself with a hammer? Because it feels so good when I stop.”

I did send her a message about this intriguing combination. If I didn’t know her personally, “basketcase” might be the first thing on my head.

However, hard to believe myself, but this third item on the trio makes a wonderful close to the circle built up by the previous two items.

How many times can we identify “hitting ourselves with a hammer”? Personally I prefer: “hitting my head on a wall” myself, but the connotations are eeriely similar.

The wall or hammer are essentially “dramas” in our lives. Events that spark intense emotional response. In Sarah’s case, her relationship with William, and it’s stomach-turning conclusion is an example of a “drama”. Whitaker’s character describes dramas as “being totally fucked.” The oxymoron of being liberated by such an experience disappears when we take a closer look:

The main difference between being “totally fucked” and “liberated” is a fine thing. It isn’t (as we are normally conditioned to think) the object of the event itself, but more of our appreciation of the event in question. The fact that Sarah is living a happy life now did not reverse the events that happened prior, but surely her appreciation of those events have changed as dramatically as her life has changed.

Dramas are a direct result of our intentions. What we want, we get. However, it hurts us when we want something that isn’t meant for us. Our emotions are in turmoil over events that don’t agree with our purpose. Those same emotions are pleasant with events that do agree with our purpose.

What changes in between times of despair and hope? Our intentions change. Tricky thing–the fine line between a Sarah in despair over the loss of her life, and the Sarah who is heartily looking forward to her new one, is a change of intention. Instead of dwelling on the crappiness of the past, you look towards the promise of the future.

I’ve thanked “time” for allowing me a cop out to share Sarah’s story here. But again, I have to bid time farewell once more–because time doesn’t exist, remember? Remove time from the observation, and we can look at Sarah instead of dwelling on the crappiness of her life NOW, she instead looks towards the promise of her life NOW.

Drop time from the equation, and you have within your grasp a very potent power. The past and future do not exist, only an ever changing moment of NOW. 

From being totally fucked NOW to being liberated NOW, is just a function of changing your intentions…

NOW.

Positive Intentions April 17, 2008

Posted by Mark T. Market in True Stories.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Talking about intentions, it’s an interesting oxymoron to think in the negative. This doesn’t necessarily mean thinking bad things, more of thinking non-things.

Like, you can say:

I’m not fat.

The brain actually does not interpret this properly, and ends up thinking of the word fat in order to understand it. However, consider a statement phrased in the affirmative:

I’m thin.

This merits instant recognition and registers immediately as a concrete thought.

Splitting more hairs, Doc? Not quite. Because actually the whole idea about intending something is being aware of the object or goal of the intention. As in the previous example, when you embark on a diet or exercise program, you don’t intend to be not fat, but you can intend to be thin.

This seems like second nature, until you realize how uncommon affirmative thinking really is. Like when religious people pray, as is often the case, they are asking for emancipation or deliverance from something. You can, as part of the prayerful, ask that your dear old uncle suffering from Type 1 diabetes finally recover from his death spiral.

However (regardless to what deity you are lifting your prayer to), in asking for that prayer, do you in fact see your dear old uncle as healed and whole from his ailment? Or do you still see him as he is now: bedridden, extremeties suffering from sores, unable to heal properly, in constant pain, and requiring a bitch of an insulin shot every so often? A safe bet is its the latter.

We pray in the negative–which, as our brain unable to interpret the intention, focuses on the specific object being wished away, rather than the opposite.

Your prayer to remove your uncle’s diabetes actually crystalizes the diabetes ailment in your mind. The implications? We’ll get to that shortly. Now dear old uncles aside, most people do their praying and wishing in a similar way: looking at the negative rather than the affirmative.

Now the result: provocatively, since the intention to negate focuses on the idea being negated, it actually reinforces it. Your thoughts call even more attention and strength to the thing you wished away. This isn’t supposed to be interpreted as rocket science though, nor is it a lame attempt to get into pseudo-religious discourse, but admittedly it does makes a very convenient and convincing proxy to the catch-all argument:

“God works in mysterious ways.“

Since your brain and by association your prayer (if applicable) is on the idea you are wishing away, that’s what happens and manifests. By praying for your uncle to recover from diabetes, the diabetes remains in force and gets stronger. Your intentions and prayers are getting answered, in not quite the way you thought or understood.

Like smiling is easier than frowning, affirming is much easier than negating. Why the absurd bias?

Can’t say actually. Although at this point, it’s also easier said than done if one has been used to negating everything around them in the first place.

Rather than wishing your uncles to not be sick, wish your uncles to be well.

Rather than wishing to not be fat, with to be thin.

Rather than wanting to not let go, wish to belong.

And so on and so forth.

At this point, it’s interesting to bring up the stories of people I know who might need a little crash course in affirmation. And, yep you guessed it, like so many interesting stories in this blog, these anecdotes are about women. Just for differentiation (and a little fun), let’s call them by some popular actress’ names: Jessica Alba, Keira Knightley, and Rachel Weicz. All women should be in their late twenties by the time I write this. Very attractive and ambitious career women in their own rights who work in top jobs in multinational corporations. However this is where their similarities end.

+++++++++++++

Jessica Alba has been having a rough time of it lately. She landed a wonderful and strategic position in her company in the last year and had been deeply involved in a product launch that was supposed to take place in late 2007, but for one reason or another, and through no apparent fault of her own, kept moving and moving and moving. One thing after another caused the delays and sullied not only her credibility but especially that of her bosses. On one particularly hellish day, the head of her department called Jessica into his office to get a quick update on the goins on, with the product launch barely days away. Jessica gave her boss a rundown of the project-turned-fiasco, when finally the boss told Jessica to her face that she wasn’t fit to hold her job and he wanted her out of their department one way or another.

That was two months ago. Since then, after the product launch, Jessica keeps a low profile. And despite the growing incidence of backbiting in her immediate office feels helpless that she was deprived of the chance to show her worth. Of course it’s never the end of the world for corporates like Jessica–jobs and projects are a dime a dozen, but the experience has sapped her of her drive.

Jessica’s prayer is simple: I don’t want to be here anymore. She has been saying this for four months already.

+++++++++++++

Keira Knightley is a highly driven executive consultant. She’s a cosmopolitan girl, always updated on her fashion sense, the latest buzz, and the places to be in. Keira’s professional life has been nothing short of flawless. Her projects are done well and mostly on time. She’s an effective manager, and keeps her bosses happy. This is pretty much inline with what Keira had been doing all her life–even back in school, Keira was mostly a straight “A”s kind of girl.

Keira’s poison? Let’s call him Zak Efron. Zak Efron is Keira’s old flame from college. Quite the opposite of straight-A’s Keira, Zak is a “come-as-you-are” kind of fellow. Although he’s quite updated in his own way with the pop culture of their generation, Zak is really more of a “sup?” kind of guy who hangs around anywhere, occasionally with Keira, ever since they broke up years ago. Keira and Zak meet up regularly, to catch up on old flames, and usually to end up arguing over some little thing that occurred or never occurred years ago. Sometimes, things get a little “steamy” in between, but this has been their game for some time now.

However, Zak is himself living with another girl: call her Ashley Olsen. And they not only share the same house, but the same bed (most of the time, when they’re not at war). Ashley is nothing like Keira, which suits Zak just fine, as he switches between them like underwear (Ashley being the daily-and-over-the-weekend boxers, while Keira is the occasional jockey brief). Keira and Ashley, although not openly objecting, are also aware of each other’s presence (they’re smart girls both of them). However, their focus in on Zak, because Zak is such killer of ladies.

Keira’s prayer and is simple: I don’t want to share the pedestal with anyone. She has been saying this for nearly nine years already.

+++++++++++++

Rachel Weicz has been quite busy doing what she does best: her work. Although known as a spontaneous and bubbly individual by those who know her, Rachel has slowly gone through a transformation, that even she is afraid to admit. Back in college, Rachel was already quite a sensation, being one of the “lookers” on campus. Although her calm demeanor and demure looks belie a love-life that’s quite a roller-coaster to those who know.

Going on her fourth (or is it fifth?) boyfriend now, Rachel’s had the full stretch of love-hate arguments. Already closing on her thirties, there’s just one question that Rachel would rather face tons of work for than hear:

“So did he propose already?”

The “he” in Rachel’s life, is an ambitious young guy. Let’s call him Meester T. Meester T is currently abroad finishing his grad studies. Although he and Rachel have met up over the years, seems Meester T has been growing more and more distant and tentative every time Rachel sees him. In their last meeting, it was like Rachel was talking to a different man. The truth that Rachel fears is that Meester T’s feelings and priorities might be changing without him telling. Meester T is quite the prideful and ambitious person, and although he never tells Hillary to her face, everyone knows Rachel’s blessing and her curse: she’s been a trophy girlfriend all her life.

Which makes the current sketch of now quite unnerving. Although Meester T’s school is soon to end in the next 18-24 months, Rachel and T have not come to terms with the question of marriage quite convincingly. Add to that the unfortunate reality, that most of Rachel’s close friends have tied the knot recently, and some of them already have children or are on the way. The trophy girlfriend, once the envy of the group is now lagging quite behind.

Rachel’s prayer is simple: I don’t want to wait forever. She’s been saying this for going on four years already.

+++++++++++++

Intentions, quite a bitch. They can set you free to achieve your goals, or trap you in a living hell that you didn’t realize already exists.

You don’t know this because you intended it. It’s a very clever distraction isn’t it?

We See What We Want April 15, 2008

Posted by Mark T. Market in Reflections.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

I’m a fan of optical illusions. Not only do they illustrate the limitations of human perception, but they’re quite a lot of fun in the process.

Consider the following picture (apologies in advance to the color-blind). Also hopefully your browser can view animated gifs (nowadays any decent PC would).

Photobucket

Now I’ll tell you what you can see:

  • If you want to see pink dots, just follow the rotating missing dot.
  • If you want to see pink dots and a green dot, just look at the “+” in the center.
  • If you want to see the green dot more clearly, focus and concentrate on the “+”.

The thing is, there really is no green dot. There’s always just eleven pink dots present. The appearance of a green dot is a color perception driven by the pink dots disappearing against the grey background. Distract your eyes on the “+” and you reinforce the false color perception by making your eyes focus on a different area.

If our sight, being a major part of our five senses, can be easily fooled, our perception is faulty at best.

Add emotion into the mix, and you start to wonder why human beings aren’t quite the rational individuals you were introduced in school philosophy or economics.

Another point: Let’s go back to the list I mentioned above. What I phrased as:

If you want to see the green dot more clearly, focus and concentrate on the “+”.

could have been easily phrased as:

If you focus and concentrate on the “+”, you will see the green dot more clearly.

What’s the difference? The first (and more correct) phrase is driven by intentions. The second (and more commonly understood) phrase, is an action and outcome driven statement.

It’s a fine point, but bear with me for a second. Most of the time, we view our world and our goals as action and outcome-driven statements:

  • If I study, I will pass.
  • If I work, I will make money.
  • If I leave, I will be free.

Notice the presence of the word “will” in those statements, which also implies a time-driven outcome. (click that link to read what I have to say about time). Let rephrase the three statements above into intention-driven statements:

  • If I want to pass, I study.
  • If I want to make money, I work.
  • If I want to be free, I leave.

Although the former and latter group of statements are similar, you know deep inside that they are not. The first group of statements are conditional–but they do not imply any direct knowledge of the results. The second group meanwhile is more affirmative, being driven by desires and intentions. Invoking the first group of statements implies a person making an action, then hoping the result will follow. The second group of statements implies a person who already KNOWS the result.

Big difference.

Notice also that the time element disappears from the second group. This is intentional, because if we still included it, say:

  • If I want to be free, I will leave.

It isn’t quite as effective, isn’t it? By putting a time element into the intention, you effectively nullify it (i.e. you will NEVER leave).

From all the above, the following should be apparent, if not obvious to you by now:

The lies we were raised to believe:

  • We see and perceive things as they are.
  • We do actions which lead to a result.

The truths that eventually emerge:

  • We see and perceive things the way we want to see them.
  • We do actions because we want to achieve a result.

Intention is the missing truth. What we see and what we achieve are a direct result of our intentions. If we have no intentions, we see nothing, we achieve nothing.

The question is: what are our true intentions? What do we really want?