~ Article by Dr.L.Michael Hall and Mr Shawn Dwyer ~ In ancient times, tribunals accused certain persons (usually women) of being “witches.” If a woman denied that she was a witch, the denial was used as proof that she was a witch. The reasoning was this, “Witches always deny that they are witches.” Conversely, if she said that she is a witch, she was burned at the stake. If she denies it, she was burned at the stake. It was a double-bind cognitive fallacy-damned if she confesses; damned if she denies! There was no way for her to prove that she was not a witch. The accusation implied the proof.
Cognitive Fallacies and Irrational Thinking
Talk about craziness and irrational thinking-that kind of double-bind reasoning condemns a person by the very act of making an accusation. A very similar thing happens today with name-calling. You use a derogatory label to refer to someone, and the label itself presupposes the very thing that it asserts. The fascinating thing about that is that when a person argues against the label, that person subtly assumes the validity of the label. “No I’m not stupid.” This tends to reinforce the label inasmuch as it has the structure of a command negation. “Don’t think of blue.” “Don’t question my sincerity.” “I’m not dishonest.” “I’m not a crook.” (Nixon).
Double Binds In The Mind
In these double-binds, name-calling, criticisms, etc. there is a cognitive fallacy. What is the fallacy? It lies in the fact that the person on the receiving end is being called upon to prove a negative. This kind of thing happens a lot in language. Here is another cognitive fallacy that’s incorporated into language and that is difficult to flush out because it requires some thinking things through and some critical thinking skills. I bring it up now because calling someone a racist is today American Media’s Accusation Flavor of the Month.
I’m speaking about the cognitive fallacy within the phrase “unconscious bias,” “unconscious racism,” or any other “unconscious X.” Let’s begin by considering the two words “unconscious bias.” If we use the NLP Meta-Model, you will notice that what we have here first are two nominalizations which have been tied together. And when they are used together in this way, the result sounds meaningful while it actually is not and does not point to anything empirical. You can tell that it is not meaningful when you start questioning it.
What do you mean by unconscious bias (unconscious racism)?
Who is not aware of his bias? When is he not aware of it? In what way is he not aware?
What does he need to do to be conscious of his bias?
Often, the person using this terminology will say, “It is just there and you can’t know that it is there, if you don’t, that’s evidence that you are unconsciously biased.” Ah, the double-bind assumption of the very thing which is being proposed!
Open Up Mental Thinking
To open up our understanding of this let’s begin by de-nominalizing the words. Underneath the false nouns (nominalizations) are verbs indicating actions or behaviors.
Bias: an orientation, tendency, attitude, a thinking pattern.
Unconscious: not-conscious, unaware, not aware.
By turning the false-nouns back into verbs (and actions) here’s what we have: becoming aware of what we were not aware of, namely, our orientation, attitude, and thinking patterns. With this we can now ask questions that will provide more clarity of thought:
What actions are you seeing or hearing that indicate a bias against certain persons, women, racial heritage, ethnic background, sexual preference, etc.?
Now often those who use such language do so to promote a certain agenda. It is manipulative language and they are using it to get an unfair advantage in their propaganda. So they say things like the following to prevent the phrase from being clearly understood, “But unconscious bias is very subtle, it is hidden in social and cultural structures,” it is institutionized bias. Yet if the person shifts from an individual to talking about a group (e.g., organization, society, country), then again, we ask the Meta-Model questions to derive some clarity of meaning:
What are the practices, polices, rituals, rules, ways of operating (group behaviors) which we need to be aware of that dis-advantages some people, those of one race or another, females, etc.?
The point in using the Meta-Model is this
If you can’t identify the behavior of some concept and put it in terms of external actions and words, or internal behavior such as thinking patterns, then you are dealing with an unsubstantiated vague concept that only exists in a person’s mind, and not in reality. It’s an ungrounded assumption. Without identifying a specific behavior, it is a muddled double-bind cognitive fallacy, in other words, craziness and irrationality. No wonder the person cannot clarify.
To further push for clarity, ask, “How can I demonstrate that I don’t have an unconscious bias?” If the answer is, “You can’t” then that reveals you are facing someone with a belief-system which cannot be falsified. And that, of course, makes it not only unreasonable and unscientific, but a form of manipulation. The structure of the person’s argument is unanswerable which is probably what the person wants. Now he can rest confident (and arrogant) in his belief.
Actually, there is no such thing as “unconscious bias” or “unconscious racism” apart from behaviors, words, utterances, etc. that a person-at some point in time-is unaware of. Once we make it conscious, we can fix that bias by adopting a more sane and appropriate way of thinking. That’s what we do when we reframe a limiting understanding or belief.
If you listen, really listen, you can hear the matrix. And if you listen with your eyes, really look intensely, you can see the matrix. A person’s matrix of meaning, intentionality, emotions, and sense of self is there for the seeing and hearing, if you have ears to hear and eyes to see. How are your eyes and ears? Test yourself with the following statement. See what you can detect.
“I really do want to become an effective leader who can inspire the best in people, bring out their best, and use my personal congruency. But I fear that I don’t have the capacity to do that. I can’t even imagine myself being like that.“
The sentence begins with intention. The word “to” reveals that (“I really do want to…”). And the world is leadership. Others are the objective of the desire (“inspire … bring out the best”). Self is spoken in the phrase, “I … use my personal congruency.” State: fear. Power: “I don’t have the capacity…” “I can’t imagine.” Meaning: “can’t imagine.” Time: the word “want to…” imply what the person does not currently have or is.
Matrix Model Dimensions
So much in so little! How did you do? The key is to know the eight dimensions of the matrix and listen for words that indicate those dimensions of the three process areas- state, meaning, intention and the five content areas (all about one’s sense of self) – person, powers (resources, skills, competencies), others (relationships), time, and world (domains). As you familiarize yourself with these eight dimensions of the matrix- what is entailed in each, then the words that directly and indirectly refer to them becomes cues and signals about what aspect of the matrix is activated and being referred to as a person speaks.
Next, as you tune your ears to really hear- listen for emphasis. Where does the person put his or her emphasis? What word/s does he stress? And what word/s does she gesture with a definite movement of hands? What word/s are repeated several times? This will give you a clue about where the person’s semantic energy is focused.
“I to become an effective leader…” – Intention.
“I really do want to an effective leader…” – Self, Time, Intention (again)
“…and use congruency…” – Power
“… that I just can’t do that.” – State/Meaning-the block that’s interfering
“… but I fear that that.” – Power
Matrix Model Energy
Seeing and hearing the matrix of a person means paying lots of attention to the information the person is selecting, sorting for, giving attention to- which is on the outside. And then attending to the information processing and selecting that the person does on the inside. To discover this requires asking questions and meta-questions. It requires calibrating, testing, checking, etc. From the information going in, then it requires attending to the energy being created in the body (embodiment, state accessing) and then the energy expressed in speech and behavior.
In this example, was the emphasis on the first part of the sentence or the later? Was it on what he wanted or what was stopping him? Wherever the emphasis, go there. Pace the person, test what he is saying, and then address that. Hence that would be the part of the matrix where the person is focused and where the person is living.
Try this one:
“But I’m not at fault, Bill started it as he always does calling me a goofball and then saying it was just a joke. But it is not a joke, it is an insult and he knows it. I wish I could speak up and tell him to cut it out. But I’ve never been good at conflict, I guess I fear it too much.
Power: fault, Bill started it, can’t speak up, can’t tell him, “not good at.”
This one strikes me as mostly focused on the Power dimension of the matrix where the person feels incapable, unable to speak up, unable to handle conflict. That’s where the energy seems to be and where I’d go in response.
Eyes and Ears
So when it comes to us humans, the eight categories of the Matrix Model offers you a way to cut through the complexity and focus on one of those eight dimensions. It’s there right in front of you- if you have eyes to see and ears to hear. Join our Meta-NLP programs to find out how to communicate more effectively
Warning: Global Thinking. A larger crisis on Planet Earth than global warming is global thinking. When a person generalizes (or over-generalize) that person engages in a kind of thinking that often prevents one from actually “thinking.” That’s because when you “think” globally you are actually describing a category or classification, and not actually thinking about anything in particular.
Global Thinking is Hypnotic?
Isn’t That Amazing? This should also be revealing and frightening. Revealing because putting something into a category, “I want to be successful in my life.” “This program will make you effective and productive.” “That’s a bad choice.” you can say all kinds of things and yet, in the end, not say anything. [This is actually the key to hypnotic language patterns, the art of speaking in an artfully vague way.]
This Is How Politicians Typically Speak.
So they say they are for the common good, prosperity for all, better social programs for the poor, equality under the law, and on and on. Of course, we all agree with that and want the same. But what does any of that mean in terms of policy decisions? The politician isn’t saying. Now while that prevents him from offending anyone and from being criticized by anyone (a good strategy for getting votes), it also saves him from taking a policy decision so that he can be held accountable (a poor strategy for building trust over the long-term).
Cognitive Bias in Global Thinking
Frightening because global thinking can not only deceive others, it can even deceive you. This is a warning that should come with generalized words and statements- they can lead to self-deception just as easy as they can deceive others. What is the self-deception? Mostly the cognitive bias wherein you think you think you understand something. Let’s say you adopt a new belief, “I can be successful in my career.” That’s a good capacity belief. But what does it refer to? What are you actually believing you can succeed in doing? The statement doesn’t include any particulars only a global statement about “success.” A category. Therefore this is the occupational hazard which is built into the global perspective. It seems like you know and understand what you are saying, but you do not. You do not have an internal indicator about what it is that would be required to be successful.
Global Thinking Lies Inside of So Many of Our Everyday Problems.
Consider perfectionism as an example. Someone says that they are procrastinating on an activity because they want to do it right. Okay. And what does “right” mean? Whatever the behavior is- making a sales call, exercising at the gym, writing a report, eating more healthily, etc., what are the details in doing something “right?” While the statement sounds meaningful, its vagueness makes it impossible to pin down and so while one may think that he has made a meaningful statement, he has not. So we meta-model the statement and see if we can get some details:
right does the behavior need to be? Are
we talking 50%, 75%, 95%, 99.9%?
of being right, what criteria are you using to determine right?
“Doing it right” sounds like a visionary goal, are you expecting to do it on your first attempt? How long do you think it will take you before you get it just right?
Recently, I was working with a trainer the other day whose goal was to change his perfectionism frame from getting it right, perfect, or flawless. I inquired about his decision and he had come to realize that “perfectionism” was a false hope, an unrealistic goal, and an impossible objective. “Great!” I said, congratulating him on his insight and decision. “So what do you want to set as your new frame of mind?” We had been talking about principles that one could mind-to-muscle to get it into neurology. So he said, “I just want to do my best and not have to do it perfectly.”
Then, having been through this one numerous times before, I immediately stopped, accessed a great big smile and with a twinkle in my eye said, “I think you have just snuck perfectionism in through the back door. You’re pretty sneaky that way, aren’t you?” “What? I don’t know what are you talking about. Sneaking it in?”
Doing Your Best
“Ah, now you’re going to play dumb. Okay, I’ll play along! ‘Doing your best…” Hmmmm. Best! Ah, yes, doing your BEST. and what do you think your best is but another description of doing it perfectly?” “That’s perfectionism?!” he asked. “It sounds like it to me. What do you think? If you weren’t aiming to do it perfectly, but you were doing to do your best, what’s the difference?” He paused. In a bit, he started to say something, stopped himself and then thought about it for a few more seconds. “You know, you’re right. It is bringing perfectionism in through the back door.”
Mastery Is In The Details
Therefore, Global thinking is dangerous if you do not follow it up with details. Mastery is in the details. Hence, that’s where every expert lives- in the details which manifest the meta-level principle [hence, the meaning of meta-detailing]. So with global thinking you have only started the process of thinking, you have named a category – but you have not actually engaged in a specific representation. Not yet. Are you ready to do that?
EQUALITY & COLLABORATION
~ Article written by Shawn Dwyer and L. Michael Hall PhD ~
In One Way, And One Way Only, Can We All Be Considered Equal
We are equal in terms of human value. Now that statement is an assertion of a belief or a premise. Legally in the United States we use that premise as an assertion for treating each other as equals in the eyes of the law. “All men (which includes women) are created equal…” Religiously or spiritually, this is a belief premise in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam given that the Bible says, “we are made in the image and likeness of God.” Therefore we can say that in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of faith, we are all equal.
Then Equality Ends.
In every other way, we are not equal. Rather than being equal, we are all different in multiple ways. Biologically, we are different in our genetic wiring and capacities and that leads to being different in innate abilities and talents which then leads to differences in the skills and competencies we have developed. We are also different due to growing up in different homes, with different parents, different environments, etc. So while we are all the “same” in that we are human and share a very similar neurology, we all differ mentally, emotionally, verbally, and behaviorally. Thereafter, we are all equal and unequal; same and different.
Now while what I’ve written here about equality and differences is obvious, surprisingly it is an area of tremendous confusion. There are some who equate equality with being “equal in all aspects” and therefore find the above paragraph about differences offensive. They want to think that we are all equal in our understandings, competencies, abilities, etc. Yet even a superficial observation of the facts reveals that we are not and when we to try to treat all children as equal, we only set them for tremendous disappointment later.
The fact of differences leads to another important sociological fact
When people get together to cooperate in doing something, in achieving something together, hierarchies of competence emerge. The reason for this is that not everyone is equally good at everything. Some are better at some things and worse at others. Consequently, when people collaborate on a project, as those best at any given task compete against each other they generate a hierarchy of competence. Those who thrive in math compete, those who thrive in language compete, those who thrive in athletics compete, and so on.
Trying to equalize everyone out in any given area of competence and pretend that all are equally informed, skilled, and/or competent denies the differences reality. In the political realm, Jordan Peterson has been speaking out about the critical role hierarchies of competence play in any society. He says this term from biology is used by biologists to refer to
any social animal group which competes. They inevitably create hierarchies of competence and not “dominance hierarchies.” He aruges that human organizations are sufficiently complex so that dominance by itself is insufficient to create a sustainable hierarchy. Among chimps, for a hierarchy to last over time, the top chimp had to be quite social so he can have companions who help maintain order. Stable chimp groups have friendships among the top ones. That’s because pure or raw power is an unstable basis for a stable hierarchy. In using the idea of a hierarchy of competence, Peterson contrasts it with the idea of equality-ideas which show up as capitalism against socialism and Marxism.
Within Any Area Of Competence In Society
It is smart to identify those who are competent and especially the most competent, and to reward them. After all, isn’t that what you want when you are looking for someone to do something? If you need a plumber, you want someone who is competent in plumbing. If you need a mechanic for your car, you want someone who knows what they are doing and has the competence to do it.
An effective society (or community) encourages hierarchies of competence and reward them.
This creates capitalism. If you’re going to be a plumber, be a good one! Find a genuine hierarchy of competent and climb the ladder to its top. Learn everything you can, practice the required skills, and make something of yourself. If you want to be an architect, be the best architect you can be. If a coach, be the best coach. If a trainer, be the best you can be. To all of this Peterson adds two of the predictors of success in Western Societies-intelligence and conscientiousness. Study what you need to study and put in the hard work needed to become fully competent.
Now given all of this, a community of people who collaborate together are both equal and unequal. They are equal in having equal value as human beings. They should all be treated with honor and dignity as persons. They should also be treated as unequal in knowledge and skill. Some are more competent in managing the finances and others are terrible at that. Some are highly competent in running trainings, managing events, and others suck at that. Some are skilled in delivering a training or seminar and others are not sufficiently competent to do that. Therefore everyone’s voice is not of equal value or weight in every decision that arises. Because I do not have knowledge, experience, or skill in architecture, medicine, IT, and thousands of other areas, my voice in those areas cannot and should not carry equal weight to those who do.
These facts naturally lead us to recognize and give more prestige to those who have developed expertise in a given skill. We recognize that they have developed superior understanding and skill so we defer to them when a debate arises. After all, shouldn’t the most informed about a subject provide information as well as an example for us? It is precisely because we are not equal, not the same, that collaboration works as it does to enable all of us to win- to win more than if we worked by ourselves.
Learn more about collaboration and equality from The Coaching Centre contact us today
EMBRACE THE FLUIDITY OF “PERSONALITY”
~ Article written by L. Michael Hall PhD and Shawn Dwyer ~
If the question came up once, it came up several times, this year. The question? Something about “personality.” “Is that the way some people just are?” “What about people who are X?” Sometimes the questions were about the behaviours or statements that a person favors, sometimes about a favorite representation system, sometimes about what to do with people who “are” X or Y?
“Just forget personality.’
It doesn’t exist, it is a construct that has been overly used, it is just not a useful way to think about things.” When some asked that I later explain that; Ordering and Disordering Personality with easily enhanced through NLP and Neuro-Semantics. We address the “personality disorders” in the DSM IV along with three co-authors. My intention was to show that the NLP and Neuro-Semantic models can and do adequately address personality disorders.
The comment I always make with regard to personality is this-
Personality is what we do, not what we are
You and I do personality- it is how we think, emote, speak (language), act, and relate. As we do these things-we establish in our minds and the minds of others what we call as our “personality.” It’s how people know us, recognize us, and think about us.
As a person, how do you function? How do you know yourself? How do others know you? Is it not in how you think and the way you think? Is it not in how you emotion, the particular emotions that you regularly access as you move through life? Is it not in the way you use language, the way you speak, the words you use? Is it not in your actions and how you relate to people? Well, yes, of course. You learn to be and express the person you are in these ways. And as you do, you are doing your “personality.”
Where did you learn to think, feel, speak, act, and relate that way?
From your early home life, from your culture, your religion, your school, your friends, your books, your movies, etc. You learned to do your personality from all of these influences. And often, you learned to do what you needed to do in those contexts in order to survive, to get along, to deal with the factors that you had to deal with. Obviously, the more dysfunctional your early home environment as well as the “world” that you grew up in, the more you would have adjusted your person (personality) and that may result in developing personality disorders.
Abraham Maslow spoke to this in Toward a Psychology of Being (1968). Maslow was answering the question about “personality problems.” What do you say when someone tells you that he or she has “a personality problem?” Do you say “I’m sorry!” or do you say, “Good!” He noted that it all depends upon the context in which the person has been surviving. He asked about the “personality” of someone trying to survive Hitler’s Nazi environment. If someone adjusted oneself to that, would he have a healthy and normal personality, or would there be some severe maladjustments? If well adjusted to a context of hate, prejudice, racism, etc., would we say “good?” Or would we say, “Sorry to hear that?” And would the so-called “personality disorder” in that situation not be a good thing?
Personality is context relative
You do your personality in some context in order to adjust or not to adjust and a healthy, strong, and vigorous sense of self can be deemed good in one context and a disorder in another. So Maslow asked, “Who is doing the calling, the labeling?” He recommended that we ask about the context, the criteria of the evaluation, the identity and motivation of the person doing the labeling if we want to fully understand what’s being discussed.
“The essential characteristic of holistic analysis of the personality in actual practice is that there be a preliminary study or understanding of the total organism, and that we then proceed to study the role that our part of the whole plays in the organization and dynamics of the total organism. …
The personality is not separate from its expressions, effects, or the stimuli impinging upon it (causes) and so at least for psychological data it must be replaced by another conception.” (1968, p. 297)
His “Self-actualizing People: a Study of Psychological Health” appeared in Personality Symposia: Symposium #1 on Values in 1950. There Maslow challenged the fundamental premise of modern psychology, namely that we can devise accurate theories about human nature by studying the mentally ill or the statistically average.
The distinctions for a better life
If we learn to do personality, and if personality arises in specific contexts and is relative to those contexts-this implies several really important things.
Parents take note. School administrates take note, also leaders and managers, etc. The context that you create for people to live and operate within will inevitably have tremendous effects on the personalities that are developed in those contexts. Is it a healthy self-actualizing context? Is it an unhealthy context for human beings? Is it loving, joyful, learning, contributing, etc.?
Personality can be positively changed for the better
Personality is an ongoing process and so by improving one’s thinking, emoting, speaking, acting, and relating-one’s personality is improved, enhanced, and enriched. People are not stuck or victims of fate.
How you know and expressed yourself is under your control- if you so choose
“Personality” is not a mysterious force that is imposed upon you. You may be tendencies and you may be wired for certain talents, but you are not fated to “be” a certain way. You can choose what to think and value and believe.
~ Article written by L. Michael Hall PhD and Shawn Dwyer, ACMC ~
What we call ego-strength is the strength that a person has in his or her sense of self to look reality in the face without blinking. It is the strength that enables a person to face a challenge in life or an upsetting circumstance and not cave in. With ego-strength you are able to stand up to the negative circumstances, stand up against what you might be tempted to do (give up, quit, etc.), and demonstrates an inner strength of determination, patience, persistence, and resilience. That’s what we mean by the term ego-strength. It has nothing to do with pride, arrogance, selfishness, etc.
If that’s ego-strength, do you have that kind of internal strength? How much of it do you have today? How much of it would you like to have?
Without ego-strength people react. They may passive shrink away or they may aggressively over-react with unthinking actions. Both the fight and flight responses, however, are the opposite of ego-strength. Now all of this becomes critical when it comes to knowing if your client is truly a coaching client or someone who needs therapy. Therapy is designed to heal traumas and hurts and enable one to build up a new and strong sense of self.
Coaching requires ego-strength from the start- ego-strength to be able to handle the challenges that are inherent in coaching.
Clarity about “Ego”
We are all born without any ego-strength because we are all born without a sense of ego or self. There is no “I” at first, there is enmeshment. Baby does not distinguish self from mother. For the infant, it is all one and the same. The word “ego” is Greek for “I” or “me.” Open up a version of the Greek New Testament and every time someone says, “I am…” it is the Greek word ego. Sigmund Freud designated ego as the sense of self, the “I” that deals with and relates to reality.
Normally our ego-strength grows and develops as we grow and develop as persons. It’s part of our psycho-cognitive-social development. We develop more and more of a sense of self as we face reality. As that “I” develops the ability to see and accept reality for whatever it is, without the magical thinking of wishing and confusing our wishing with reality, we have more strength to cope and master the facts and constraints before us.
Weak ego-strength means a senses of self that does not easily face, take in, or cope with life’s challenges. A weak sense fo self fights reality, hates it, and wishes it to be otherwise. Expectations are unrealistic and based on inadequate understanding. Reality seems too big, too frightening, too overwhelming … and so we avoid the encounter. Weak ego-strength means that the person doesn’t feel up to the task and so unresourceful, weak, fragile, unable to cope, etc.
Strong ego-strength describes the person who first accepts whatever is as existing, then it looks at it and explores it with a view of dealing with it, coping and mastering it. With strong ego-strength you do not personalize the things out there in the world or what others say or do. You notice and you access the necessary resources to deal with it. The strong your ego-strength grows, the more of a sense of self we develop, a sense of your skills and resources, of your ability to handle whatever comes.
Ego on the line
This use of “ego” differs from how we sometimes use the word, as when we say, “He has his ego involved” in this or that. Then we are speaking about his self-definition, his pride, and his reputation. Typically this indicates a weak ego strength and the need to boaster it up by fighting and defending and being defensive. The stronger our ego, the less our “ego” is
involved, or on the line. Strengthening our ego-strength enables us to sit our “ego” aside and to engage the world in a straightforward way.
Strengthening Our Ego-Strength
Suppose you want to strengthening your ego, what do you do? What patterns enables you to do that? What frames, beliefs, values, expectations, etc. would support you doing that? Start with the following four.
First, meta-stating yourself with acceptance. Access the state of acceptance and apply that feeling to your “self.” Think of something small and simple that you just accept. You could get yourself worked up about it, even furious and frustrated, but you have learned to just go along and accept it. The rain, the traffic, changing the baby’s diaper, taking out the garbage, etc. What is that like? Feel that and reflexively turn that feeling back onto yourself- your sense of self, life, the cards that life has dealt you, when and where you were born, your aptitudes and lack of aptitudes, etc. Acceptance is not necessarily a positive feeling. It’s not resignation or condoning, it is welcoming something into your world without any negative fanfare.
Second, look at your self-expectancies and expectancies of others, the world, work, etc. and adjust them so that you have a fairly accurate map about what is, how things work, and what you can legitimately expect. What have you mapped about yourself, people, relationships, fairness, life, etc.?
Every unrealistic expectation sets us up for a cognitive and semantic jar. If it is unrealistic, then you are trying to navigate and work in a world that is an illusion and that will knock you down. This is where and why learning and developing greater understandings about things increases your ego-strength. Knowing what is, how things work, the rules and principles of people, relationships, careers, etc. gives you the ability to adjust your thinking-and-emoting which increases ego-strength. It takes the surprise and shock out of being caught up short.
Stepping into Your Power Zone
Weak and strong ego-strength is related to your sense of personal power or the lack thereof. You increase it when you accept your personal responses of thinking, emoting, speaking, and behaving, meta-state them with a frame of ownership and then by welcoming and practicing the use of your powers, step more and more into your power zone. This increase self-efficacy, activity, proactivity, etc.
A fourth process for strengthening ego-strength is replace rigidity and closeness of mind with flexibility, willingness to accept change, and an openness to the flux and flow of life. The sense of insecurity predominates when you have a weak ego-strength. It is then that you don’t want things to change and we want things to stay the same. As you develop more personal security, you are more open to change and to adapting and to using your resources.
If you would like help with developing your inner strength, give me, Shawn a call on 0439194323