In this self-actualization workshop is designed to enable you to identify your real identity as a physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual being so that it unleashes your energy and vitality for a full and expressive life.
Unleashing Your Real Self enables you to find and experience your full humanness—a scary thing. It is scary in that you will come face to face with your wonderful and glorious fallibility and mortality— factors that make life precious. It is scary also because you’ll come face to face with your greatness— with the mystery and wonder of your untapped potentials. You develop your base identity as an embodied being with a whole array of animal appetites and learn how to “be a good animal with healthy appetites” (Maslow). And you’ll develop your peak identity of your Real Self—the you that only you can uniquely be and become. And there you will learn the mysteriousness of the peak experience as you transcend yourself, even if only for a moment, and live in the realm of being— being your best self, you at your most perfect moments.
Imagine a scale for vitality of life. Imagine that each day when you get up and each day when you return from work or before you go to bed, you step on your Vitality Scale. If there was such a scale, what would it read?
Self-Actualization is synonymous with experiencing vitality (energy, passion) in every aspect of living. Self-actualizing people are alive and awake to the wonder of life and relationships and challenges. The so-called “motivation problems” that people struggle with is never about “motivation” as such, it is about needs, need gratifications, the meanings you give to such, and the skills you have for effectively activating and actualizing your drives.
• How fully alive and passionate about life are you on a daily basis?
• How much energy and vitality do you have for the activities of your life?
• How emotionally vibrant are you? Or how emotionally flat, tired, worn out, depressed?
• What would you do to activate the full vitality within you that’s ready to be unleashed?
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
~ Article written by L. Michael Hall PhD and Shawn Dwyer ~
The failure to thoroughly learn the Meta-Model as the basic NLP Communication Model is one of the biggest challenges we have in getting coaches prepared. It is also the biggest problem we have in helping people become truly professional in their communication skills.
As written in the book on the Meta-Model, Communication Magic (1997/ 2001), the Meta-Model is the key to everything in NLP. And if you do not thoroughly know it, you do not understand very much about NLP. Whatever NLP pattern that you love and use regularly is a result of the Meta-Model. Why then should you memorize the Meta-Model Questions?
1) Meta-Model first to have access to the most powerful questions in the world and have them at ready access.
These are powerful questions even though at first glance they do not seem very powerful. What’s so powerful about them? The power is in using them to get to specificity. So it is not the case that you ask one question and that’s it. You use the question repeatedly and you use multiple Meta-Model questions to chase down the reference and meaning of a person. By memorizing the list of 18 questions (as you did with the WFO questions), you will create a repertoire of powerful questions.
2) To have a more complete understanding of how language and meaning works.
We use words to think, to conceptualize, to reason and to both construct meaning and to convey meaning to others. Yet how does that work? How is it that our linguistics enable us to do all of that? This is where understanding the NLP Communication Model comes in – and the Meta-Model Questions summarize that understanding. This is also where “the map is not the territory” premise comes in. What you say about anything- your words, is just that, words. It is a mental map about something that you are referring to in the world. But what? What are you or your client referring to? Ah, that is the question. If you don’t question yourself or your client- and just assume that you understand (the Understanding Bias), then you will learn nothing. That’s a great formula for feeling comfortable in ignorance.
3) To facilitate a conversation of precision and clarity.
Because words are loaded and are often false (pseudo-words), you and I can easily be bamboozled by words. We can be hypnotized by sentences that we (or our clients) utter as we assume they are real and fail to question them. Conversely, when you know how to ruthlessly examine linguistics (your own and your client’s), you can create clarity and precision of thought. And when that happens- magic happens. That’s why the original NLP books were titled, The Structure of Magic, referring to the magical way that Fritz and Virginia and Milton used language.
4) To be able to quickly meta-model the experience of your client.
When NLP began, the Meta-Model was the only tool that they had for modeling. Yet with it, and from it, all of the other NLP models and tools were developed. Think about how amazing that is. This means that as they learned how to truly listen for language distinctions and ask challenging questions about it, they were able to pull apart the structure of subjective experiences. “Coaching as Modeling Clients,” that is precisely what an expert coach is able to do with a client. That, in the information gathering stage of coaching- long before any intervention is attempted- the coach comes to understand the client’s current experience on the client’s terms.
5) To be able to more effectively facilitate the desired changes which your client wants.
When it comes to detecting, recognizing, and then using the leverage points of change in your clients- it is almost always language that tells the story. That is one thing that Bandler and Pucelik discovered as they were doing “Gestalt” in the early days- they recognized how Perls would like for some of the key phrases that he was attuned to and how that his responses to those phrases would often create the magic of change. Later, the same happened with Virginia. From these John Grinder then introduced Transformational Grammar and so the Meta-Model was invented (for more about that history, see NLP Secrets: Untold Stories).
Memorizing a list of questions may be one of the last
things that you want to do. I understand. Most of us have not had a positive
experience with regard to memorizing. Yet as you know, when you have memorized
a poem, a song, a pledge, a verse, etc., then you have an internal resource
inside you that no one can take away- and that’s at ready access whenever you
Here then is my challenge to any and all who want to be
truly professional Meta-Coaches –
~ Article written by L. Michael Hall PhD and Shawn Dwyer ~
As a coach, and especially as a Meta-Coach, you frequently (like just about every time) encounter strong emotions in your clients. It’s inevitable. They are humans! The only exception is if you are coaching some other species. But it it is a human being setting in your coaching chair, then you can anticipate and expect that you will have to deal with emotions on a regular basis.
To that end, we devote the morning of Day 2 in Coaching Essentials training to “state” – and especially to emotions. We define an emotion using the two NLP definitions and then using the two Neuro-Semantic definitions.
An emotion is energy in motion
Emotions are felt meanings that measure the difference between a person’s map and the territory they attempt to navigate
An emotion is made of a systemic mind-body-emotion experience
Emotions are not destiny or commands
We then spend some time on how to approach an emotion in your clients, especially tabooed emotions- those which have been prohbited. To that end, we use the permission frame and typically, we do a demonstration on the morning of Day 2 to show the power of the permission frame and how to use it. Why? Because when you know that, you have the key to emotional intelligence and how to coach for E.Q. with individuals and/or groups.
Emotions are not bad
How does a Meta-Coach address, handle, and coach emotions, including “strong” emotions, even strong negative emotions? Given that emotions are just emotions- just signals about your thinking and your body, signals about the relationship between your meanings (maps) and the territory, and expressions of your meaning-constructions- just accept them for what they are. Emotions are not bad. They are not demons. Emotions are not commands from heaven. They are not actions. They are just emotions– motions that are designed to move you out from where you are.
Acceptance is first.
Let that be your first response- just acknowledge the emotion. Notice it, observe it, and seek to understand it on its terms.
Acceptance is the state that allows you to then explore it for the information it contains. And how do you do that? What do you ask?
About what? First ask, “What is the emotion about?” Emotions are always about something. If it is fear- you are afraid of what? Joy- what are you joyful about? Anger- What are you angry about? Don’t assume.
The emotion may be entirely off-base and wrong. This is where content does count. People can get into a strong negative emotional state about things and that emotional state not only does not help them, but makes their lives much, much worse. “Thank you for sharing your anger. Now for me to more fully understand you, it is about what?”
Next ask, “How much are you feeling that emotion?” “How strong is it?” “If you were to gauge it from 0 to 10, what is its intensity?” Emotions are not only about some specific context and action, every emotion has a degree of intensity and that intensity oscillates over time. It will come and go. Emoting will oscillate in terms of degree of power.
So ask about the intensity and scale it.
Once you know the context and content (about what) and its intensity, ask the ecology question: “Is the emotion you’re experiencing appropriate or not?” An emotion could be the right emotion to feel given your mental map and skills, but inappropriate in the context that you’re experiencing it. It could be that it is just not the right time or place and so inappropriate.
Emotions come in logical levels, just as do intentions, beliefs, decisions, etc. This is the insight of the Meta-States Model which enables you to check a person’s reflexive self-consciousness.
So ask, “What is the quality of your emotion?” If it is anger, “What is the quality of your anger?” “What is the quality of your love?” This question will help you identify the meaning-frame/s that you have embedded your understanding about your emotion. Do you like your emotion? Fear it? Shame yourself for it? More important than the emotion is the emotion-about-the-emotion. Fear-of-fear is much worse than fear.
Angering-at-your-fear turns your emotional energies against you, your mind, your body, your very self.
Finally, given the energy of an e-motion, how will you express it? Since an emotion is not an action, but only an action-tendency, you do act from your emotions. How you decide to use an emotion is yet another aspect of emotional intelligence? Will you express the emotion behaviorally and act it out? Can you speak it out?
Will you think and write it out? What effect will the expressions then have on your health, your relationships, and even on the emotion itself?
You can now use this basic format when you encounter an emotion. The emotion indicates that something is significant or meaningful within the person’s matrix and, as such, offers you a door into that person’s inner world. Here’s to your excellence in meta-coaching. Ring Shawn now on 0439194323 to discuss how easy managing emotions can be for you
All politicians all do it. At least, I can’t think of a single politician who doesn’t do it. Yet in name-calling, they are actually practicing a very primitive form of thinking. Rather it is one that is appropriate for a seven-year old or maybe a 13-year old, but not for an adult. Actually, it is a form of pseudo-thinking that shuts down healthy thinking.
Now there’s a particular kind of name-calling that Donald Trump does. I never liked it, yet it was often funny, and sometimes incredibly entertaining. And what would you expect from a successful TV entertainer and producer (The Apprentice) or from a successful business man who knows how to establish a brand (the Trump Brand)? Mostly during the campaign, he gave names to his opponents, names that typically stuck: lying Ted, crooked Hillary, Pocahontas, etc. This simple kind of name-calling strikes me as what young children do, sometimes for play, sometimes to torment other children. And it also stops thinking. Hence once you label someone in that way, the conversation is over.
Name Calling With Judgment- A Fact Or Only Fiction
A more insidious form of name-calling is making a judgment about someone and then presenting that judgment as if it was a fact. As a result this is what many of the Democrats do in response to Trump. They make a judgment that he is unfit to be president or is mentally deranged or something else and then they use those terms to describe him. While it is also name-calling, it is more hidden. Once they describe him with their judgment terms they do not own that it is their judgment. They try to sneak it in as a fact.
Much as this form of name-calling confuses two levels of information- descriptive and evaluative. Yet when a person cannot make this distinction, that person can never be a professional communicator. Also you can find that statement over and over in the early NLP literature and it was made to introduce the importance of sorting out what is sensory-based (see, hear, feel, etc.) as a description. A description that is empirical versus those that are evaluative based. The first set of descriptions use the sensory predicates.
The second set use the Meta-Model distinctions that are ill-formed– unspecified nouns and verbs, nominalizations, lost performatives, universal quantifiers, etc.
Descriptive Language Predicates
Descriptive language can be immediately tested because it is empirical and available to your eyes and ears. Evaluative language cannot be seen or heard. And it is an evaluation by someone using some values, criteria, and standards. So when you use evaluative language, you are engaged in a high-level and subtle form of name-calling. “You are rude.” “She is very gracious.” “He is hateful.” “She is a racist.” “They are blind to their prejudices.”
And all of that is just name-calling. Hence it is using and imposing evaluative judgments on someone. All that it accomplishes is to prejudice people against someone that the person doesn’t like. To the question as to why someone thinks, say, or does what they do, this is the answer. Consequently it gives people an answer and thereby enables them to stop thinking. It fallaciously “explains” the person’s actions that they dislike. So this kind of name-calling offers a false answer that shuts down further inquiry.
The word (as a map) is then assumed to be the real thing (the territory). It is as if the word is the reality. In addition, the strange thing about this is that if the person reacts to this name-calling by vehemently reacting- that very reaction then encourages more name-calling. Whilst the reactiveness fuels the person doing the name-calling because it works in that if it galls the person, upsets him, and “gets” him.
So it is stereotypical thinking that feeds name-calling. We make a judgment about someone based on a stereotype about some classification assuming that “everybody in the class is essentially the same.” Furthermore, that stops any fresh thinking that considers the person based on his or her uniqueness. Malcolm Gladwell spoke of this in his book, Blink (2005) by quoting psychologist Keith Payne:
“When we make a split-second decision, we are really vulnerable to being guided by our stereotypes and prejudices, even ones we may not necessarily endorse or believe. (P. 223)
Therefore this map-territory confusion can seem “magical.” Because we don’t question the name calling, we take it as real. It is a negative form of reframing.
While reframing puts a positive spin and meaning on what we would normally find challenging, name-calling puts a negative spin and meaning on what we might otherwise value. In this way, name-calling creates dis-value as it attempts to set a negative anchor.
Finally, the next time you hear name-calling, whether it is overtly in the way Trump does it or more covertly as others do it- remember it is designed to stop thinking and to make robust inquisitive thinking in short supply.