In the last few weeks I have been fortunate to have been sent on a few
interesting training courses by my company (a global management consultancy).
These courses have centred on how unconscious behavious (habits) and personal
belief affects performance.


Some of the material was based on NLP [1], some on main stream psychology
(mainly neurology wrt memory and behaviourism).

What was of most personal interest was some of the topics on change and
conflict - especially it the situation of changing a person (client's) mind.
There were three main points which stuck (in my mind)

1) Change is hard and uncomfortable

This may seem blatantly obvious but to anyone that feels that they embrace
change I would ask you to perform this simple task:

Fold your arms

Now fold them the opposite way ( I would write a paragraph on the detail but I
hope you know what I mean )

How does it feel?

Not nice, huh?

Golfers will recognise this feeling from any time they have gone to a gold pro
to improve their swing.

Now if I told you there was a _really_ good reason why you should fold you
arms in the new way, and even if you understood and believed me.. If I told
you to fold your arms again you would do it in your 'traditional' way.

Lesson: Change is hard, we like what we know

2) To change someone's opinion, ask them questions

Most (all) people, when confronted with a new idea or vision or model their
first reaction is to attack it. This is usually a reaction to a perceived
attack i.e.

Person A) The Moon is made of green cheese
Person No it isn't (you are wrong), because (for example) NASA has been
there and brought back samples, which are rock and also the Moon isn't green

Another approach might be:

Person A) What do you think the Moon could be made of?
Person Hmmm.. well NASA samples suggest it's rock and the Moon doesn't look
green
Person A) What makes you trust the NASA data? What colour do you see the Moon as?

Perhaps this limited illustration does not illustrate the point clearly but
the idea is that by asking questions you leave the responses open and civil..
by taking an opposing or incredulous stance you innately limit the response.
By questioning you require the other person to think about their belief
without threatening them. Of course there are certain phrases such as:

You really believe _that_ ?

Which are more statements with a question mark.. which are unhelpful.

3) Your facts are really beliefs

Your mind has _very_ limited focus. Your senses detect everything [2] however
your mind filters this raw data ( any example of visual or auditory illusion
should convince you of this ). What is in your memory is altered by (at least)

Deletions
Distorions
Generalisations

A simple example would be, say, a movie. Have you ever talked with the
person(s) that saw the movie with you and noticed that they remember different
details to you.. and perhaps interpreted scenes or dialog(ue) differently? You
were exposed to the same sensory input but your recollection differ.

Even at a very basic biological level, your senses 'lie'

All _facts_ are like this, you will have preconceptions before experiencing
anything. This will determine what - and even how - you remember the raw data.

There are myriad exaples throught this list - the most obvious appear in the
religion/polotics threads where party A will cite Iraq as evidence for
conviction (belief) Y and party B will cite Iraq as evidence for belief Z. The
point being that we will exposed to the same data but will delete, distort and
generalise anything that conflicts with our belief. Even those who like to
think of themselves as _open minded_ are still aflicted by this inherrent
trait, it is something we are _all_ guilty of. Of course we cannot see it.. so
I will attempt to illustrate the point..

I'll pick something that many people are fearful of, speaking in public.

I am aware that some on this list have no issues here but I will presume that
you may have at some point.

Now I would ask you to really think, is there a time on your past when you
_have_ spoken in public and it has been well received? No matter how
insignificant, even maybe saying 'grace' at dinner or those times when you
were the 'extra' guest at dinner and you sparkled.

I am guessing most people will have had at least one experience when it has
gone well. This shows that you _are_ capable, however, you believe you are no
good because you can recall _very_ vividly and easily all the bad times.

Any event you can recall everyone else will have a picture of that event that
is _different_ to yours. Your 'truth' is no less or more valid that someone
elses 'truth' since both are not accurate representations.

Even scientific Truth is not absolute even though great care is taken to
ensure that others can repeat the same experience. All science is built on
models of the Universe, such models fit our experience (so far) but even then
it is a _best guess_

Religious Truth stands on no firmer or weaker footing since it is based on the
same flawed experiences. My Truth is not your Truth, even if we share the same
faith.

So, my point.. no really I do have one... is that what I find most valuable
from the 'Mind is (seemingly endless) differing perspective on the same
Reality ™ which are all True [3]

And yes.. I am working very late.. and I've had _far_ too much coffee

I hope _someone_ found this interesting...

Yes, I did find it interesting. Building up and then knocking down beliefs and opinions is part of the bigger educational picture. I think that the state of mind when knocked down, unless built back up quickly, is what leads to much mental illness. 'People' people tend to knock down gently and help build up quickly, whereas the self-centred tend to knock down quickly and leave the 'victims' to fend for themselves. Even the educationally limited can have characteristics that could be valuable to the human race and so should not be ignored or mistreated educationally. Experiencing the beliefs and opinions of others, and through this (learning and possibly) changing one's opinions, describes a fundamental human process that will continue to contribute to our survival. But the teaching and learning processes can be arduous and longwinded. Science has a wonderful vocabulary for its own structure of the nature of phenomena, roughly illustrated as:

idea...hypothesis...theory...fact.

I think that most scientists would 'believe in' the characteristics of facts, but generally, unless religious, would not tend towards 'beliefs', the latter being more subjective versions of phenomena, and occasionally entering the realms of the supernatural!

So if there is some truth in all perspectives, then a plausible goal would be in obtaining a better perspective.

Uncomfortable for some, but yes. Those who take this approach would be the truly enlightened.

http://www.neurosemantics.com/

I found this to be a more updated approach towards the same field, its not all that new and quite a talking point in the psy-trance group I proudly call my friends :-)

What do you think?

I looked at it and it does look like they're asking for money in return for training. While it could be a scam, there doesn't seem to be enough information on that site alone to make that determination. I wonder if VietSteve knows anyone who took the training. Keep in mind that Scientology and EST have lots of "satisfied" customers, so personal endorsements may not be sufficient.

If this stuff were any good, they'd teach it in schools. Or, at the least, every intelligent person would have bought in. Or is that 'inner' intelligent?

Enlightenment comes through learning, hard work and lots of time passing. Some don't become very enlightened. They just think they have when they are young. Others eventually find their true place and still others don't achieve their potential (often they are wasters, or easily lead down the wrong track). Then there are those poor souls that haven't got much to work with. Most of these don't get anywhere, although some have a good life, often through sympathy.

Rick, do you mean pharmacologically altered states of consciousness or just natural delusions?

Personally I'd be more interested in nootropics, but as every pharmacist knows, there is no drug known that has no side-effects.

The more interesting and useful states are often referred to as "higher." Going "down" with such drugs as valium, secobarbitol, or acetylmorphine is generally not productive from an educational standpoint. The downers can be medically useful as a temporary refuge from extreme stress, but must be used with caution as they are addictive.