Disqus - Latest Comments for pvajda

Re: Are You the CEO of Your Brain?

peter vajda — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:37:14 -0000

Good one, again, Charlie. An area that continues to intrigue me.

I'd like to offer some additional, I hope, related food-four-thought.

As for being the CEO of your brain, I'd like to use another analogy, or metaphor - a motherboard, which consists of a number of nodes, diodes and other protuberances. And think of each of these notes, etc. as a belief system, worldview, paradigm, perspective and the like. This motherboard is the piece of equipment that "thinks" or "drives."

You asked, "if you are not the CEO of your brain, who is? There can be no good answer to that question…"

The question I like to ask is, "Whose mind/brain are you thinking with?" Or, "Who's driving?"

And, now as an “adult,” you – i.e., your motherboard – possesses a database of thoughts, beliefs, behaviors, emotions, feelings, worldviews, assumptions, perceptions, understandings, expectations, inferences, biases and values - of a young child.
Is it your adult “you,” or your little boy or girl?

Developmental psychologists tell us children, progressing through various stages from prenatal to age about nine, discover (mentally, emotionally, physically, spiritually and psychologically - depending on the stage they’re in) (1) whether or not it’s safe him/her to be here; (2) whether or not it’s ok to make his/her needs known; (3) whether or not it’s safe for him/her to explore and try new things; (4) whether or not to trust what he/she is learning; (5) whether it’s ok to learn to think for one’s self; (6) whether or not it’s ok for him/her to be “who I am,” to find out who others are and to learn the consequences for his/her behavior; and (7) how to build an internal structure that supports him/her, and to develop the competence to master the technical and social skills needed to live in his/her culture.

Our psychological and emotional orientation to our world is pretty much in place by the time we are nine or ten. Many psychologists say – our emotional and psychological make-up is set by the time we are six.

Consider:

As an “adult,” the question is: “When I’m thinking, responding and reacting to my life, who is it who’s thinking and reacting?

There are two choices: (1) my 3-4-5-6 child-ish self or (2) my emotionally and spiritually mature self.

The answer for 98% percent of the population (though they may disagree) is (1).

Generally, developmental psychologists largely agree that most “adults” – emotionally - are actually 3-4-5-6-year-olds, in adult bodies, wearing adult clothes and that while people, places, events and circumstances change from age six well through adulthood, our psychological and emotional orientation and reaction to them is still that of a 3-4-5-6-year-old.

Whose mind is it anyway?

During the stages between pre-birth to about the age of six, we take on our “programming” – e.g., our emotions, feelings, ways of believing about, thinking about, and reacting to our world and the people in it, ways of negotiating our world that kept us safe and secure, ways or behaving that brought us love, acceptance and approval from our primary caregivers and other authority figures (e.g., extended family and friends, teachers, clergy and the like).

So, now as an “adult,” you – i.e., your motherboard – possesses a database of thoughts, beliefs, behaviors, emotions, feelings, worldviews, assumptions, perceptions, understandings, expectations, inferences, biases and values - of a young child.

Is it your adult “you,” or your little boy or girl?

The next time you become reactive (i.e., fearful, angry, rageful, jealous, resentful, confused, lost, apprehensive and the like) about some aspect of your life – at work, at home, at play or in relationship – ask yourself these questions:

What am I feeling right now?
How old do I feel (emotionally, not chronologically)?

The emotionally immature adult thinks and reacts with the mind of the 3-4-5-6-year-old. The emotionally immature, child-ish, adult often is experienced as: acting out, throwing tantrums, being overbearing, micromanaging, fearful, scared, needy, controlling, disrespectful, angry, resentful, pushy, bullying, judgmental, critical, jealous, envious, abusive, shut down, withdrawn, dishonest, insincere, defensive, argumentative, grandiose, and focused on the self and ego.

How does this happen?

When we experience consistently loving, caring, and nurturing parents, we are more likely to create strong, positive ways of doing and being in the world. Such consistent behavior comes from few dedicated, focused, mature, healthy parents whose parenting efforts were continuous. Few folks were raised in such families. Few of us had our needs met adequately. The result is that uneven parenting produces children who were neglected – physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually and/or psychologically. Many children were not raised to develop strong centers – the result is some flavor of emotional immaturity or child-ish-ness.

Child-like behavior - Growing up again

For most folks, the path from child-ish-ness to emotional and spiritual maturity – becoming an “adult” adult - requires some type of process – i.e., developmental “work” - which support us to “grow up again.” This process (it is a process, not an event) supports one to come into their own True, Real and Authentic Self in their life - at work, at home, at play and in relationship. The process of growing up again supports one to access their True and Real Self – the Self that was ignored during childhood.

What does a mature, child-like adult look like?

Presence work for the adult usually focuses on awareness of our past programming and how it adversely affects our present state. Presence work also teaches us to be with what is, right here and right now – “my self” in the moment unencumbered by past emotional and mental baggage we have carried through life. Presence work also focuses on the heart – where our True and Real Self abides. The idea is to be in the moment, not in the past – and walk through life with a smooth, clean motherboard.

Eckert Tolle in his work around presence (the Now), Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in his work around flow, Buddhist practices around meditation and achieving a state of “no mind,” or other spiritual traditions that focus on a still point, are meant to support us to experience life right here and right now from a place where we are real and authentic in the moment – unencumbered by “our motherboard” – past programming.

From a place of presence, no one owns any real estate on your motherboard. It’s smooth and flat. In fact, we don’t really need a motherboard because our heart and soul are driving. We are connected to our True Self - a singular node or diode - our Center or Core - our True and Real “ME!” that informs us of “right knowing,” “right understanding” and “right action” – all from the “inside.”
Presence draws on our heart and soul’s capacities, allowing us to experience true emotional and spiritual maturity and a “child-like” (vs. child-ish) state.

Presence deletes our “little child” programming – which often creates states of feeling: lost, angry, abandoned, confused, unloved, etc. In a state of presence, we access “no mind” - what our heart and soul give us in this moment. Presence results in a True and Authentic Self who is: loving, compassionate lively, nurturing, excited, firm, fair, helpful, juicy, respectful, adventurous, self-responsible, curious, non-judgmental, wondering, joyful, honest, sincere, happy, allowing and accepting.

So, the next time you’re feeling reactive, consider what it would be like if you didn’t react with that little boy or girls’ mind.

Re: Gallup on Banking: Squandering Trust for 32 Years

peter vajda — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:34:02 -0000

A terrific post Charlie, and thanks.A couple of thoughts:John writes, "...What is interesting to me is how Americans have built this myth about "trickle down" and "what's good for the company is good for Americans" in spite of the evidence..."Personally, I would parse this a little bit and ask the question, "Who are those Americans who have bought into the 'trickle-down' theory?" My own experience and travels lead me to believe it's the "haves" more than the "have-not" folks who subscribe to this theory.

And, I'm just foolish enough to create the nexus between the "haves" and many in the banking industry, and, by the way, the politicians the banking industry supports (e.g., the bankers and Wall Street are the greatest supporters of the members the new "super-committee" which is supposed to deal with the debt ceiling issue, dare I say, with transparency, honesty and integrity).And Barbara writes, "...But as we see across all industries, "industry is not destiny" and not all banks are "untrustworthy." I suppose it's a question of "guilt by association." Hit a lot of home runs, and you're probably taking steroids, or at least that's the perception - one of many examples of the dynamic.

So, yes, not all banks are untrustworthy but the industry has dug itself into such a deep "untrustworthy" hole, it'll take a lot of trustworthy do-ing, and be-ing to extricate itself from its self-inflicted wounding.

Re: ACTION REQUIRED: Read my email PLEASE! (Part 1)

peter vajda — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:41:01 -0000

Hmmm

I find I do the same as Sandy. When I receive an email whose subject smacks of "spam" I interpret that as their asking me to delete it immediately...and I do.

As for the one-line response, do we assume the sender and the receiver are on the same page (not always the case).

The sender (feeling overwhelmed, stretched, stressed) might want a one-line response when more than that is called for ("Should we move out of the PC business?" exaggeration, but it happens ).

While we live in self-constructed prisons of "140 chaacters or fewer," one-line communication is not the only way to deal with overwhelm (moving to only using smiling/frowning faces is next?).

Are there consequences for not responding? If one were in a face-to-face meeting, or on a phone consult and the "sender" asked for a response and none was forthcoming (except silence), what would that be like? We just allow it as one's response to being busy, to being overwhelmed? What's the diffference? Who decides the importance/urgency? What's the culture around responding, or not responding, sending or not sending, around respect and disrespect, around being too busy or too distracted to communicateuicate?

Re: Are You a Connector? A Catalyst? A Steward?

peter vajda — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:53:38 -0000

Thanks Sandy. Makes a lot of sense to me. Balance = harmony = low ego orienation = fewer defenses and so is more trustworthy...and why wouldd't one be.

Re: Are You a Connector? A Catalyst? A Steward?

peter vajda — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 09:36:17 -0000

Got it, Charlie, and thaks for the clarification.

Re: Are You a Connector? A Catalyst? A Steward?

peter vajda — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:06:17 -0000

So, Sandy, I have a curiosity or two.The first is, are you saying that, like Myers-Briggs indicator types, your "preferences" describing how different people go about building trust are "natural?" And, if so, I'm curious how you might define "natural."In my perspective, everyone is born with an innate quality to trust. However, due to the way we are raised and based on myriad childhood experiences, many, if not most, folks actually move away from this innate sense of trust, what I call True or Basic trust, either by choice (based on their early childhood experiences) or they lose it altogether.So, in the process of "growing up," one has to learn to rebuild their sense of trust, True trust, or they live life manifesting a "faux" sense of trust. So, that's my question. Are these preferences "natural?"My second curiosity has to do with the tendency one has for expressing or manifesting such preferences. Related to my first question, then, is whether or not some folks possess an amalgam of two or more of these tendencies, for example, and might consciously move between or among them depending on the circumstances?

So, that is to say, might one exhibit a preference to trust, or for trust, depending on the context, the event, the circumstances, or the people with whom/which one is engaging rather than having one "preferential preference" sort of like one (preference)-size-fits-all most of the time?I'm looking forward to both your and Charlie's upcoming discussion of your perspectives.And, thanks in advance.

Re: A Birthday, a Funeral and a Centenarian

peter vajda — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 14:51:58 -0000

maybe it's a flavor of peace of mind that bubbles up from the heart...self-love

Re: The Great Twitter Debate: She Said, He Said

peter vajda — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:22:38 -0000

Charlie, I appreciate your apology, and, for me, it isn't necessary. I didn't take your comments personally. They are what they are, words, and I choose to experience them as they are, without injecting any emotion or reactivity into them. You have positions, interests, perspectives...and I respect those. Sometimes, I disagree and, as best I can, when I do disagree, I hope that I do so without being disagreeable.

One of the reasons I'm a loyal reader is that I consider you to be a mentor of sorts, from afar. I've learned a great deal from you (and your readers/commenters), on many levels, over the few years since I found your blog. Not only that, but you consistently tug on my sleeve and urge me to think about life - at work and outside of work. And, selfishly, that's good for me in terms of my personal, professional, emotional and spiritual growth. Very important for me.

So, thank you for your kinds words, not necessary for me, and let's move on with our day.

"Think otherwise?" Never gave it a thought.

Re: Books We Trust: Drive by Dan Pink

peter vajda — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:28:11 -0000

Charlie,

I agree with you. Maslow's "hierarchy" is not linear, but an amalgam of sorts where moves between and among the needs. The "starving artist" is another example of what you suggest about not having to have met "basic needs" to move forward in one's life.

I still refer to my original comment/quetion re: Is it only a lack of trust, autonomy and purpose that keep one from moving into a state of Motivation 3.0 Me? I think not.

There are those who have autonomy, are purpose-driven and are trusting and trustworthy and who, however, do not have the passion and energy of motivation 3.0 Depressed folks, who are functional, are one example, of which there are many in the work world as well as elsewhere. Those suffering from trauma are another. So, my question and curiosity remain.

Re: The Great Twitter Debate: She Said, He Said

peter vajda — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:51:34 -0000

...and not unrelatedly,

http://tinyurl.com/42gnewa

A CNN.com story today, "Do you obsessively check your smartphone?"

"...Earlier this year, Frank started to realize that he, too, was habitually checking his smartphone over and over without even thinking about it. When he sat down to figure out why, he realized it was an unconscious, two-step process.

First, his brain liked the feeling when he received an e-mail. It was something new, and it often was something nice: a note from a colleague complimenting his work or a request from a journalist for help with a story.

"Each time you get an e-mail, it's a small jolt, a positive feedback that you're an important person," he says. "It's a little bit of an addiction in that way."

Once the brain becomes accustomed to this positive feedback, reaching out for the phone becomes an automatic action you don't even think about consciously, Frank says. Instead, the urge to check lives in the striatum, a part of the brain that governs habitual actions."

and,

"...Dr. Adam Gazzaley, a neurologist at UCSF, sees another cost: Whenever you take a break from what you're doing to unnecessarily check your e-mail, studies show, it's hard to go back to your original task.

"You really pay a price," he says.

Habitually checking can also become a way for you to avoid interacting with people or avoid doing the things you really need to be doing...."

and more...

Re: The Great Twitter Debate: She Said, He Said

peter vajda — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:03:58 -0000

oops, two edits to my comment,above (with apologies)

...someone is standing at the front door of the Library of Congress and SAYING to everyone who passes by...

...standing next to a newsstand, and to every passerby, they say, starting at the top left,......

Re: The Great Twitter Debate: She Said, He Said

peter vajda — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:31:38 -0000

A great, and much-needed, conversation, Andrea and Charlie. Thanks for sharing your conversation. I look forward to what others have to say.

So, some thoughts:

The short attention span has been born out by research – namely, the brain is being conditioned to expecting more and more immediate stimulation. Twitter, and other needed types of stimulation, are a drug in this case. And, thus, the addiction; the distraction by and for the "drug."

More than that, there are some therapists who also see the twitterer's obsessive need to fill a "hole" (sense of lack and deficiency) for "belonging," to be needed. It's another form of addiction, but psycho-emotional, not only physiological.

Charlie: Well, if you’re going to tend bar, you’d better make sure your drinking problem is under control. Twitter is indeed mostly about short attention span. Then again, so are racquetball and improv comedy. Each of them is about impressions, reacting in the moment. Twitter is where you come to scan, not to find soul mates. There is a time and a place for everything

It would be the same addiction for the person who plays racquetball (or another form of engagement) "24/7, 365." I know "exercise bulimics" who are junkies for exercise. Non-stop every chance they get. It's a psycho-emotional addiction, not a "healthy" love of sport or exercise, or "improv." And, unfortunately, Twitter (and FB, etc.) is a place where many lonely and self-esteem- and self-worth-deficient hang out.

Andrea: As much as I like to think of myself as a somewhat-enlightened grown up, I just can’t seem to avoid the negative emotional component of the Twittersphere. Twitter takes me back to junior high school popularity contests. Sometimes I feel great, like “I’m popular, wow.” Other times, it’s depressing as hell—“Why’d I lose 5 followers today? What did I do wrong?” (laughing).

Thanks for your honesty, Andrea. I'd bet more than a few feel this way when they lose followers and rather than shrug it off as it's part of the game, go deeper inside to ask "what's wrong with me?"

Charlie: You can take the kid out of the junior high school; the important thing is to take the junior high school out of the kid.

Easier said than done Charlie. I'd say only 2% of the Twitter population is this emotionally intelligent and "conscious." In a "reactive" state, which is where many Twitterers live (i.e. in the limbic/amygdala brain not in the neo-cortex), folks don't self-manage and self-regulate or see the "personal-growth" opportunity.

Andrea: You know I’m a sucker for personal growth. I’m just not sure Twitter is where I want to work this stuff out.

Great point, Andrea. One needs to be heard, really heard, seen and treated with empathy here and Twitter's not the container for that.

The Big Cocktail Party
Andrea: Maybe what irks me most is that the nature of Twitter tends toward superficial interactions. While there is some substantive stuff getting exchanged out there, a lot of Twitter seems more like idle party chit chat than real connection. And I have never been a big fan of cocktail parties.

What's the one common denominator of cocktail parties? Alcohol. And for many folks, the purpose of alcohol? So I can "be myself" and "be authentic." Superficial, indeed. The last thing many of these folks are is authentic. Authenticity and "being myself" do not require alcohol or any other drug.

Charlie- But if you want to do a surface scan on what tons of people are thinking or saying about a particular topic—hey, God bless Twitter. And compared to real cocktail parties, at least you don’t have to drink or worry about how you look.

What is it that they are thinking or saying in many cases? Often, from what I've read, need-jerk reactions, positions that lack depth, emotional reactivity, and throwing around other people's quotes.

Andrea: Despite all my complaints, I do tweet. And I do see one very powerful thing about Twitter: it connects people who otherwise might not be connected. It lets people share perspectives and interesting pieces of information. Link-shortening is a blessing.

For me, in many cases, I see Twitter this way: someone is standing at the front door of the Library of Congress and the same to everyone who passes by, go in, go to the right-hand side of the room, and starting there read everything that's in this building. Or, someone is standing next to a newsstand, and to every passerby, they say, starting at the top, left go through every article in each magazine, journal, and newspaper. Or, here's a book of quotes, start on page one and just read them all. In essence, in my experience, many Twitterers are simply brokers of information. And, to tell the truth who really has all that much time to read every reference they've been twittered in the last 5 min., 10 min., hour etc. For some, it's a question of intention of the information brokering. Does it say more about my really wanting to serve others, or serve myself?

Charlie - Also, contrary to all the cocktail party metaphors, I’ve met some really cool people through Twitter–and then I’ve gotten more acquainted with many of them through email, by phone, and in-person. It is a fine way to meet interesting folks relevant to one’s business.

I think that's an important point, Charlie. If one is intentional about Twitter, then, in my opinion, less is more. Choose those folks whose tweets and/or profile appear interesting and see if there is a relationship worth cultivating. Not sure how one consciously and intentionally sifts through two million followers for those relationship nuggets.

I think the questions underneath the question about Twitter are, "Why am I really, really, really engaged in Twitter?" "What does Twitter really, really, really get me?" "How I feel when I don't have access to Twitter for a half-hour, and hour, a day, etc.?" Am I OK with that? Or do my mind and body go into some kind of revulsion, not unlike an addict who can't locate a next fix? And, for me, a most important question that needs to be asked honestly, sincerely and self responsibly, is "Is any part of my life - work, play, alone time, relationship and the like - suffering because of the amount of time I spend on social networking?" And, lastly, "Am I in denial about my use of Twitter?" "Am I trying to justify a behavior that is often self-limiting, self-sabotaging, and self-destructive?"

I've come upon many of these thoughts as a result of my coaching work with individuals and couples whose lives have been turned upside-down as a result of their obsessive, compulsive and psycho- emotional dependence on social networking. Sadly, many of these folks have lost the sense of who they are (through the addiction) and, luckily, have been jolted either directly or indirectly into regaining the sense of their true, authentic self.

Re: Books We Trust: Drive by Dan Pink

peter vajda — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:12:56 -0000

So, I'm curious.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs points to self-actualization - be all you can be - as the highest level human need (the needs in order from lowest to highest are: BASIC: physiological (health, food, sleep, sex, water, etc.), and security (of the body, of employment, of resources, of morality, of property; insurance, etc.).

If basic needs are not met, there can be no movement towards self-actualization. Over and above the basic needs are the SOCIAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL needs: belonging (love, affection, friendship, family sexual intimacy, etc.), esteem (self-esteem, esteem from others, personal worth, social recognition, confidence, achievement, etc.) and self-actualization (morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts, etc.)

According to Maslow's theory, if you want be on the path of true self-actualization (Pink's 3.0, perhaps?), you need to take care of your BASIC needs first. That is, if you're hungry, you need to get food. If you feel unsafe, you constantly have to be vigilant and on guard. This is where you spend the plurality of your time and energy.

Truth be told, only about two percent of the population is actually, proactively, consciously self-actualizing, according to Maslow.

So, the question now becomes, what is it that is preventing one from being all one can be, from self-actualizing – realizing Pink's 3.0? Is it only a lack of trust, autonomy and purpose?

According to Maslow, the 98% of those who don't self-actualize –i.e., those who fail to achieve Pink's 3.0 state of motivation (and who have their BASIC needs) are preoccupied with social and psychological needs – belonging, and esteem.

I'd be curious how Mr. Pink would address this question. That is, do autonomy, mastery and purpose (alone) lead to self-motivation (is this a direct relationship or simply a correlation?) if folks are still "suffering" from a lack of belonging and esteem a la Maslow?

Re: Speech-to-Text: My Killer Apps Part 2

peter vajda — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:05:38 -0000

oh, and by the way, I dictated the comment, above.

Re: Speech-to-Text: My Killer Apps Part 2

peter vajda — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:04:57 -0000

Charlie, I've been intrigued by this since I read your blog a couple of weeks back. As you know I publish a weekly reading, food-for-thought(focused on conscious living), and I've always wanted to simplify the process. I bought Dragon last week, read the manual, watched the training videos and this week I "dictated" this week's reading.

There's a bit of a learning curve, for me, but I'm astounded by what it can do over and above create documents (do emails, search the web, etc...all by voice command.)Very cool!

Thanks for pointing me in this new and wonderful direction.

Re: Who’s a Poor Murdoch to Trust?

peter vajda — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:27:19 -0000

Great stuff, Charlie. You get to the heart of the matter brilliantly! Along with "cognitive disconnect," Murdoch, et al, are guity of, and prime examples of, moral disengagement.

Re: Still Afraid of the Sales Monster Under the Bed?

peter vajda — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 09:38:00 -0000

Great post and comment.

"But it was more life experiences than books that changed my view. If you come right down to it—I had to grow up" (Charlie)

My experience says telling folks what to do "right," even "grow up," does not (always, usually) work. Growing up here, for me, means moving from the 3-4-5 fearful and scared child in the adult body and adult clothes into an emotionally mature adult is what's required. Many folks read the books, etc. and still are held back by fear.

Re: The Humility Imperative: CEOs, Keep Your Arrogance in Check

peter vajda — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:28:30 -0000

Good for him. The Universe tugs on our sleeves all the time to "shape up" or see the light (core values...) but often we refuse as pride has morphed into hubris and we're traken over by :blind ambition." Fortunately, Dave Balter became "conscious" in a somewhat timely manner, not too late. Many get it too late; some never get it at all.

Re: I’m Sorry IF I Upset You

peter vajda — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 11:17:31 -0000

This is a great topic, Stewart, and thanks for the conversation and references. Will keep this one in my hip pocket.

I have clients for whom apologizing is a major undertaking - challenging, difficult, anxiety-producing ad just plain uncomfortable.

When a client comes up against such a challenge, rather than move into the right-ness of apologizing, we mover in a another direction with what I call a "repeating-question." Since not apologizing seems so "right" for the client, we ask the following question over and over again, for about 10-12 minutes, to see what comes up. The question is (in this case), "What's right about not apologizing?"

I ask; client responds (with a word, a phrase, a sentence, a "story,"…)whatever the client wishes. No verbal or nonverbal interference from me. After the client responds, I say, "Thank you," and ask again – the process continue for 10-12 minutes.

The purpose underneath the question is to facilitate the client to get to the unconscious "reasoning" that brings one to behaving in a way that the client sees as "right" (about not apologizing) but a behavior which is also self-defeating, or self-limiting or self-sabotaging – not life affirming.

What normally occurs is the client comes up with the usual, stock, mental responses: It wasn’t my fault, he should have known better, she was wrong, not me…and the like.

Inevitably, the stock responses are exhausted and then, the client will go deeper into the unconscious: I feel very uncomfortable apologizing; It makes me feel small, I hate admitting I'm wrong, I need to be right, I'll blur my sense of myself if I apologize, my self-value or worth will be affected if I say/imply/infer I'm at fault; it's hard to admit that I hurt someone; I might cry and I hate to be seen crying; it scares me to apologize; my parents used to humiliate me when they made me apologize, and the like..

This is the richness of the exercise. Then the coaching dialogue moves to what's underneath the client's psycho-emotional reactivity towards apologizing. This takes times but it's here in this safe, trusting container that the client sees that it's all about "me", not "him, her it or them." And it's the place where the client sees and understands their own defense mechanisms which come up when they experience fear in some way, shape or form.

This process moves the client from an intellectual towards a heart-felt exploration and it's the heart involvement (moved by the unconscious arising -and not a mental-mind-ego approach) that makes apologizing honest, sincere, self-responsible and authentic. This is what forwards the action of one's life.

Re: Invasion Of The Body Hackers

peter vajda — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:14:27 -0000

It was only a matter of time before technology would change the way we monitor aspects of our mind, body and spirit. What EM-Wave (www.heartmathstore.com), HeartMath (www.heartmath.org), biofeedback (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofe... ) and some physicians have been doing for years, innovators and entrepreneurs have moved up to Version 2.0

So, we are moving to the place where we now self-monitor, self-quantify and track - brain waves, calorie intake, sleep patterns, weight, exercise habits, footsteps, stress levels, – spreadsheets, graphs and databases galore - all with the traditional notion that one cannot change or control what which one cannot measure. Now our data is in consumer-friendly versions.

The article states, "…entrepreneurs and venture capitalists see a huge market for consumer-focused health and wellness tools, using the $10.5bn self-help market and $61bn weight loss market as indicators of demand."

The idea is that the masses will use the "… useful, easy-to-digest information…" to what? Change their self-limiting, self-sabotaging and self-defeating habits and life patterns? Hmmm.

My concern is not about the potential for one's personal information (re: medical issues, depression, sleep habits, weight issues, diseases and the like) falling into the wrong hands – employers, marketers and advertisers, and cyber criminals. No, my concern is whether one's having this data will honestly lead them to change – change which requires consciousness, time, consistency, self-management, self-discipline, self-responsibility and self-love.

Here's my curiosity and some concerns:

1. Most folks, in my 20-plus years of coaching and professional experience, lack the sufficient staying power to do what it takes to change - regardless of how and where they get their data. Most folks tap-dance around their issues and challenges, avoiding the truth about their predicaments and engage more in self-deceit than they do real, honest work at solutions. Most folks are either unable or unwilling to change their "wiring," – thoughts, beliefs, assumptions, expectations, self-images, premises, "stories," and the like. So, they deal with the surface stuff. They refuse to invest the time, energy and inner stamina it takes to replace the wiring.

2. “People thought I was narcissistic. What they didn’t see was the self-punishment, the fear, the hatred behind the tracking,” writes Alexandra Carmichael, one of the founders of CureTogether.com, in a poem about why she stopped tracking herself. (article)

Many folks, consciously or unconsciously, are caught up in a state of victim consciousness. They feel like martyrs. "Everyone's doing this TO me." They are steeped in the quicksand of self-loathing and self-hate. No amount of data will convince these folks that their state in life (the stats, graphs, databases, charts and the like that translate into their unhappiness, low self-esteem or self-worth, feelings of deficiency and lack) are about them, not about "him, her, it or them." The data will serve validate that others are "making me" uncomfortable, unhappy, gain weight, lose sleep, etc.

3. Once the novelty of the new, cool devices and apps wears off, many of the users will begin to view tracking as they do helicopter parents or a nagging mother. "Stop reminding me that I'm angry, sad, overweight, sleep-deprived, distracted! Stop treating me like a child." Enough! These devices and apps may prove to be more of an irritant than a loving support for many folks.

I'm very curious about whether translating underlying and foundational issues that affect human behavior, attitudes, and issues of self-worth into ones and zeroes will actually support folks to honestly, realistically and truly change and transform into "a new me."

4. Will most users actually devote, consistently(the operative word) the time it takes for analysis, synthesis, recording and tracking that is required for behavior change? Really? Honestly? Especially those living a Twitter-ized, 140-character, micro-wave lifestyle? I have my doubts.
So, for me, the challenging question today (given the new and cool self-tracking apps), as it always has been, is, "Do you want to "play at" healing, growth, and change – i.e., jiggle the bulb, replace the bulb, use the failed workaround electrical tape, or even get a new lamp?" Or, "Do you have the strength and courage to go downstairs, inside, to fix the wiring?"

For the latter, there is no app; nor will there ever be.

Re: Building Trust By Design

peter vajda — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 22:11:33 -0000

Feat and creativity:

I think this is a crucial point:

"Some people are afraid of losing fees, especially when the fee will put food on the table. Pat had other work, so maybe fear is too strong a word. But he definitely wanted that new project. Letting go of that desire for the sake of the client is a great example of low self-orientation." (Stewart)

The Buddhists would say this is letting go of attachments - the major cause of pain and suffering. Freeing one's self of attachments (obsessive fear-based neediness) allows for an opening of the self to surrender and allowing and, from this place, tremendous opportunities and synchronicities often come into play. Many see this as "airy-fairy," new-agey," spiritual and the like (all in themselves defensive reactions driven by, you guessed it, fear, fear that feeds upon itself).

But I personally have experienced, as I have witnessed others experience, the results of letting go...wherein, synchronistically, clients show up, events and circumstances happen not unlike that which happened with this architect. What's even more curious and interesting is that for this to happen, one quality more than any other is required, trust. Go figure.

As for Wally Bock’s blog re: "fear from a team perspective." "He says: 'When people are scared, what they think about is what they’re scared of. While they’re doing that, they can’t think of other things, like how to do a better job'." (Stewart/Wally Bock)

I think it's important to understand why this is so. Fight, freeze or flight is the organism's reactivity to a real or perceived threat, a fear. In this reactive state, the amygdala/limbic brain, or the reptilian brain - take over and whatever behavior occurs, is "reactive," that is, not "responsive" and not coming from the neo-cortex, the rational, executive, thinking part of the brain.

Why this is so important in that many folks who are reactive, in a state of flight, fight or freeze, often believe they are being "rational" in their decision-making or discourse. They couldn't be further from the truth. They're being emotional - like a 3-4-5 year-olds in an adult bodies wearing adult clothes - not emotionally mature or adult. This is often the cause of major dysfunctions among teams, couples, and groups.

Owning one's fear, allowing it to be (that is, having the fear, not being - acting out - the fear) allows one to digest the fear and metabolize it and in the process, move into the neo-cortex and into a state of equanimity where one can be relaxed, centered, grounded - states that foster collaboration, listening, mutual understanding and support - where one can more readily and realistically "think" about solutions for the common good.

If more folks understood this, my experience is they would take the time, not to act out instinctively, but to breathe, become centered and reflective and be more cooperative and less (perhaps unconsciously) combative with fewer unintended consequences from being in a state of fight, flight or fear.

I think this is a crucial, yet often ignored, part of the foundation your graphic points to.

Re: Man Bites Dog: A Relentless Onslaught of (Online) Civility

peter vajda — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 10:34:32 -0000

As a corollary, I think one of the things that gets in the way of civility in such conversations, online and off, is that folks blur the difference between positions and interests.

Many of the respondents in the Forbes blog, as well as others, are wedded to their position and the vitriol comes out in defending one's position. Positions led to good-bad, right-wrong types of reactivity. The only option here is polarization.

When we allow our interests to drive, then we often become less polarized, more collaborative and understanding..which leads to civil discourse, and to non-violent communication. I think that's part of what may be happening in this case.

Positions are shallow. Interests run deeper and the deeper aspect leads often to a slowing-down, thoughtful and reflective dialogue and, dare I say, mature conversation.

When we go deeper and implicitly or explicitly ask and explain "why," clarification can often lead to a settling, taking-a-deep-breath- type of response and, as I said, greater understanding, collaboration and maturity in the conversation.

I think that may be some of what's happening in some of the bloggers' responses:

"John I hope you come back and help me to understand [more].” “John, I have found this discussion enlightening and fascinating. I am old school and too old to stalk you and besides I live in Arkansas..[but] see you can teach an ole dog new tricks.”

...- a sort of "hmmm, there is possibility of common ground."

Just a thought. Positions vs interests; incivility vs. civility

Re: The Dishwasher’s Tale

peter vajda — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:06:35 -0000

Hazel,

I can't help but think about Leona Helmsly's pejorative, demeaning, dismissive reference years ago to "the little people" with whom she couldn't be bothered.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where one's obsessive need to be seen as "somebody" results in their choice to do so at the expense of those they have to "step over," ignore or disregard in order to feel like somebody.

It used to be they could get that sense of being somebody if they were "comped" or had their parking vaidated. But, now, it's taken the tone of a more inhumane and impersonal affront towards others that somehow makes them feel, what?, important? Interesting times. More's the pity.

Re: Showdown at the Used Car Corral

peter vajda — Thu, 19 May 2011 22:15:50 -0000

"oh what a tangled web we weave, when we try to deceive..." all the tap dancing and machinations when it could be so simple and easy with honesty and transparency. And, if nothing else it's exhausting on many levels. (I feel tired just reading about the experience.)More's the pity.

Re: Sex, Lies, Arrogance: What Makes Powerful Men Behave So Badly? - TIME

peter vajda — Thu, 19 May 2011 11:28:20 -0000

The “right stuff” – or is it?

There’s a phenomenon permeating lots of folks’ lives – folks in politics, sports, arts and entertainment, business, education, law – just about every profession you can name.

There seems to be an increase in the number of folks who possess the requisite social skills to create workplace, professional relationships - replete with all the aplomb and niceties that one’s needs to master the "rank-related workplace ladder."

These folks are great at relating to their peers, their bosses, their clients, their mentors, their coaches, their followers, their "groupies", and their stakeholders, for example, but when it comes to their relationships outside their professional arena - spouses, partners, friends, etc. — there is no "there" there.

These same folks fail deeply when it comes to creating and maintaining truly healthy, conscious, and loving and intimate relationships.

Many of these folks have all the "right stuff.” They come from "good stock,’ attended the "right" schools, played all the “in” sports, engaged in the "acceptable" and revered extracurricular activities, pledged the "right" sororities and fraternities, and received the degree-du-jour and perhaps the post-graduate accolades that now line their walls.

On the way up, they learned how to be egotistical, narcissistic and arrogant. They wear their successes as coats of arms on their sleeves. In their chosen professional field, they paid their dues, moved up the ranks, and climbed the ladder of success — creating and cultivating the necessary relationships that would support them to achieve whatever it is their ego-driven desires needed to achieve: power, rank, status, control, recognition. And, to be honest, they knew their stuff; they knew their craft.

Being adept at relationships, they used all their tools: false modesty, false intimacy, false trust, cloudy transparency, fake vulnerability, fake charisma, insincere charm, forced gracefulness and the like.

The downside – or perhaps, their dark side - is their narcissism — their consistent need to be "on", to play the role, to always be in the limelight, to wield their power, to be in control and be the center of the Universe.

Then, it hits. Sometimes in a subtle way; more often, in a not-so-subtle way. One day they wake up and they feel alone. They experience feelings of loneliness and deficiency that accompany the stark realization that "the game is up" — their mask has worn thin and is disintegrating. Their personality costume covers but a skeleton — no meat — and, alas, they begin to experience sadness, depression, self-hate, self-loathing and self-pity.

They discover they really don't know who they are.
At home with their partners, at play with their friends, in their life (outside of work) in relationship, they stumble, feel disoriented, disconnected and ungrounded; they feel like a stranger — emotionally distant, incapable of forging deeper, heart-felt and loving intimacy. They experience estrangement from their spouses or partners, distance from their loved ones, and often end up engaging in superficial affairs, one-night stands, and uncomfortable and clunky liaisons — all in an effort to find and feel a deeper self that has alluded them.

In reality, they're searching for, longing for, their soul — long lost, covered over and abandoned. Along the way, they jettisoned their need for true and real friendship, for true and real relationship, for true and real connection — jettisoned for the sake of ego-driven needs for control, recognition, power and security. They created, then lived out their fictional stories that shored up their egos, but never their deeper relationships. They created and lived their fictional stories, focused on a superficial and immortal "me," but never on true and real friendships and relationships, never on “we.”.

So now, lost, lonely and unhappy, they don't know where to turn.

Turn inside. That's where you can find your True and Real Self — the Self that engages in honest, conscious, sincere, healthy and self-responsible relationships. That's where you are.

And, the good news — it's never too late to turn inward. You may be pleasantly surprised to discover who really lives there.