WHY WON’T THEY STAND?

For the past few days I have struggled with a question that I began considering when I heard the President’s State of the Union speech. Namely, What kind of thinking would cause someone who holds a different opinion to not even be able to acknowledge you when you make a good point?

In seeking an answer, I’m starting from several assumptions about people, knowledge, truth, communication, etc. Namely, I’m assuming that holding differences of opinion is a normal thing; that people inevitably view things from their own perspectives, and that their background, training, education, and experience creates these differences.

I’m also assuming three NLP presuppositions. One, there is a difference between person and behavior and that a person is more than what one thinks, says, and does. Secondly, behind every behavior is some positive intention. People do not choose to do what they do just to be evil, but because at a higher level, they think it will produce something of value for them. Three, you never know what you have communicated until you check out what the other person has heard. That the meaning of your communication is the other’s person’s response, even if that was not your intention.

Starting from all of these assumptions, then I’m wondering about the kind of thinking that would lead someone in an oppositional party to refuse to acknowledge when you say something that most everyone would agree with and you would agree with it if your colleague said it. That people differ is to be expected; it is not a bad thing in itself. Differences make for creativity. It would be unnatural for everyone to think the same way. For science and for civilization we actually need a multiplicity of perspectives. That’s why when someone who disagrees with me makes a good point, I should simply say so and acknowledge that. Why not? That doesn’t mean I agree with everything or condone everything.
What are these good points of common sense? Like reducing drug costs where a prescribed drug may cost $4,000 to $500. No taxes on tips or overtime, securing the border, deporting murderers and child abusers, allowing parents to be in charge of their own children, etc.

In answering my own question, my conclusion is that the opposition party (in this case, the democrats, well except for John Fetterman) were actually not thinking. Instead, they were caught up in the ‘thinking’ substitutes (which all of us get caught up in from time to time). And why? Because as they think that a difference of opinion is a threat or danger, their stress level goes up and they revert to stress thinking (e.g., the cognitive distortions). They also begin to engage in reactionary thinking (by personalizing), polarization thinking, agenda thinking, superficial either-or thinking, and borrowed thinking (see Thinking for Humans (2024) and Executive Thinking (2018).

Because of these inadequate thinking patterns, they could not do real thinking. They could not consider a different opinion and in good faith consider it. They could not ask questions about it in an attempt to understand it. They could not honestly doubt its source or validity, detail specifics in it, or make critical distinctions (the first five of the critical thinking skills).

What does it take to be a reasonable person and to hear out what someone on the opposite side thinks? What does it take to try on or consider that perspective and ask questions to “seek first to understand” (Covey)? What does it take to stand up for someone you disagree with when they actually make a good point and speak a truth? Certainly, no one is wrong all the time.

What does it take to start from the premise that what people are doing and saying comes from what they consider a positive value for themselves? Given that, what does it take for us to stop demonizing the one who disagrees and maintain a respect-for-the-humanity of the other person? Whatever ‘crazy’ idea you think the other is proposing, what will it take for us to separate person from behavior and start from the position of respect and at least listen to it?

Oh yes, I’m making another assumption. I’m assuming that in the marketplace of ideas, if we keep talking and dialoguing, if we keep seeking first to understand, truth will win out. It may be the truth that we’re operating from different perspectives and so in the end we agree to disagree. The problem is not vigorous debate, it is confusing person with words and ideas and then demonizing someone for differing. That’s the problem. That’s when things get ugly. That’s when people become hateful, bitter, disrespectful, insulting, and when all of that gets exaggerated—things become violent.

What we want is non-violent yet vigorous conversations, and that requires a basic level of respect, a separation of person and behavior, good faith to validate persons, and a sweet reasonableness to admit mistakes and wrongs. Only then will we be able to stand up for each other when we say something that makes common sense. And that would be a huge beginning to put an end of the childish polarizing that’s so destructive to democracy.

WHEN AN ASSASSINATION
CHANGES A NATION

I was only 18 when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis in 1968, a couple months later, I moved to Memphis to begin my schooling. There I began to see the after-effects of King’s Civil Rights Movement. Later I took a church in Mississippi and there I joined the AACP, I was the only white person. I tried to step up by preaching equality of all people. For that I was fired. My part was very tiny. It was the dream of Martin Luther King Jr., then his assassination that touched me and that began to change a nation. King had a dream and today we recognize as a fabulous and wonderful vision of humanity—that we see each other and treat each other, not by the color of our skin, but by the character of our heart.

This past Wednesday, the assassination of Charlie Kirk may turn out to be a similar national change. Charlie’s presentations and debates on college campuses was for the human rights of all people—the right of free speech, free debate, the right to thinking and arguing your case with others with respect and dignity. That was his theme and that is what got him murdered.

He lived what he preached. He debated with intelligence, good reason, common sense, and respect. When someone on the opposite side of a debate made a good point, he acknowledge it, “fair point, well stated.” He never operated from a win/lose perspective. It was always how can we together search for truth. For him the idea that “words are violence” was non-senses and at the heart of the problem of irrational political violence. Korzybski noted that words are but mental maps, symbols of something other than themselves. As symbols, whe word ‘cat’ cannot scratch you. The word ‘dog’ cannot bite you.

For Kirk, if there was still disagreement after the debate, he respected that. He knew that he could not ‘change’ someone mind. Only each of us can do that. But he could engage in a dialogue and a respectful conversation that would stimulate people to think.

That was his focus: getting people to think and stop parroting someone else’s PC (politically correct dogma). Those who hated him accused him of all kinds of things (being hateful, being a fascist, etc.) just as a previous generation accused Dr. King of terrible things (being a communist’ was the curse language of the 1960s).

Yet here’s the amazing thing with Kirk. When a person knows himself or herself and knows the truth about themselves, they aren’t disturbed by lies, slanders, false accusations, or insults. They dismiss them gently and graciously. In this they are un-insultable. That’s because they are highly focused. Dr. King was focused on the American Dream— “all are endowed by their creator with life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” and with “justice for all.” Kirk was also focused on the American Dream —the freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly, etc. He wanted the right to disagree, to debate, and to talk out differences with respect and honor.

Will this recently tragic assassination change a nation? Only time will tell. That was true in 1968, only time would tell. Who would have guessed at the time of King’s assassination that years later we would have African American Senators, Congressmen, Judges, Governs, and a President?

Will this be a wake up call to think more respectfully and to end the polarized thinking that turns those who disagree into enemies or villains? Will this be a wake up call to cut out the over-generalization labeling, name-calling, and insulting just because someone doesn’t see things the same? Will those who have already used the murder as something to celebrate and cheer come to their senses and think humanly about a life lost, a husband and father taken?

With the assassination of Dr. King, a nation began to rally around his dream and over the years Civil Rights legislation was passed that created an equal playing field. I hope something similar will happen in the near future that will bring conflicting ideologies back to the conversation table. It is always a sad day for people when those who differ cannot sit down and talk. When they cannot even respectfully listen to each other. When they cannot think together.

Finally to end on a positive note. On Friday even the liberal New York Times which certainly did not agree with his opinions, did recognize the way he lived. They used this headline, “Charlie Kirk Practiced Politics the Right Way.”

THE DAY TRUMP GOT TRIGGERED

As I watched the Trump–Harris debate (September 10), it was obvious that Harris was well rehearsed in how to “get under Trump’s skin” and irritate him. I began counting every comment that seemed to be oriented to do that. But after 5 or so minutes, I gave up counting. She was doing it almost constantly. And she was good at taunting and annoying him by saying things that were intentionally provocative—often as a side-comment when saying something else.

What was also obvious was the fact that while Trump didn’t let many of the provocative statements and lies get to him; he did get triggered by many of them. Yes, he took the bait! And in taking the bait, he ended up talking about things that no one cares about except him and what no one trying to decide who to vote for cares about—numbers at the rallies, who want the 2020 election, Harris’ father, which former administrative persons left and thought Trump unfit, which world leader is laughing at him, etc. All irrelevant! But by taking the bait, Trump got distracted, and wasted his time on irrelevancies.

I found it interestingly sad that Harris spent so much time baiting Trump and almost no time defining any of her positions. Perhaps that was her intent. She avoided answering quite a few direct questions: Are we better off today than four years ago? Why have you flipped on so many issues? Would you abort a baby in the 7th month, the 8th month, the 9th month? Do you take any responsibility for the terrible way we pulled out of Afghanistan?

If her goal was to get under Trump’s skin, then she certainly succeeded in doing that. He certainly seemed to be rattled by her insults, zaps, insinuating implications, personal attacks, etc. He was rattled so much that he got angry. And as he got angry, he become less coherent so that whereas he is usually very sharp and can improvise a comeback in the moment—he missed a great number of opportunities. On the first question, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” when Harris did not answer it and talked all around it, he could have simply noted,
“Did you notice that she failed to answer that simple question? I wonder why? Is it because the whole country was better off four years ago than they are now.”
Then he could have quoted the facts about the cost of groceries, gas, rent, housing, etc. But being triggered, he missed that opportunity.

Nor was Harris the only one on the attack. So where the two ABC moderators. For Trump they asked follow up questions, they fact checked him 5 times to correct him, but they fact checked Harris 0 times—zero even though she made several glaring mistakes. So as many have noted, the debate was really 3 against 1.

I felt sorry for Donald Trump as I watched the debate. He could have done so much better if he had not taken the bait, if he had not let her get under his skin. So what is my points in all of this? To make the point, let’s do some imagining. Imagine that Trump had attended a Neuro-Semantic Training or Hired a Meta-Coach and learned the Un-Insultability Pattern! Imagine that! If he had learned, as so many have learned, how to reverse his “taking insult” strategy—a strategy that everyone seems to learn and learn really well as they grow up(!)—then he could have maintained presence of mind while staying calm and cool. Then he would have had all of his knowledge and communication resources fully available to him.

Since first developing and teaching the Un-Insultability pattern in 1995, I have taught it to Police Departments, to busy open-room news departments, and to the medical responders on the front lines. I have taught it at Sales Training meetings. But mostly I have trained it in NLP practitioner courses and our Trainers’ Training course. What’s amazing is that it is imminently learnable. If a person wants to be able to not be so easily triggered, even if he thinks of himself as “a sensitive person,” he can learn this as a way of being in any context of pressure.

Every year at Trainers’ Training, we have one of the more skillful trainers present the Un-Insultability Pattern. This past May, Wahyudi Akbar or Yudi made the presentation which was live streamed as he presented it. It was a fabulous presentation and it is what enables those who experience it to stand up and keep presence of mind without getting triggered! Mr. President, if you’d like to experience, just call on us.

[You can find Un-Insultability in the book, Meta-States (1995/2012) as well as in Dragon Slaying, The Sourcebook of Magic, etc.]

HOW TO USE MANY WORDS AND SAY NOTHING

When I listened to the CNN interview this past Thursday (August 29) between the interviewer and the presidential candidate, I listened with my NLP-ears. I listened not so much to the content, but to the process and structure. All I will present here is the first minute or two which is how it began. Consider this an NLP perspective which reveals how most politicians seem to think and speak. I have italicized abstract words, vague words and nominalizations.

Bash: The voters are really eager to hear what your plans are. If you are elected, what would you do on day one in the White House?
Harris: Well, there are a number of things. I will tell you first and foremost one of my highest priorities is to do what we can to support and strengthen the middle class. When I look at the aspirations, the goals, the ambitions of the American people, I think that people are ready for a new way forward in a way that generations of Americans have been fueled by—by hope and by optimism.
I think sadly in the last decade, we have had in the former president someone who has really been pushing an agenda and an environment that is about diminishing the character and the strength of who we are as Americans—really dividing our nation. And I think people are ready to turn the page on that.

Amazingly, two paragraphs and 120-plus words and she did not offer a single item of what she would actually do on day one. One visual word “look at the aspirations…” three kinesthetic words: “pushing an agenda…” “dividing our nation…” “turning the page.” Talk about hypnotic language! Those two paragraphs are full of vague non-referring words, nominalizations, and metaphors. Isn’t that incredible! In terms of being a professional communicator—this is what we do not want. Further, she did not answer the question! Dana Bash caught that and so she repeated the question.

Bash: So what would you do Day One?
Harris: Day One, it’s gonna be about one, implementing my plan for what I call an opportunity economy. I’ve already laid out a number of proposals in that regard, which include what we’re gonna do to bring down the cost of everyday goods, what we’re gonna do to invest in America’s small businesses, what we’re gonna do to invest in families.
For example, extending the child tax credit to $6,000 for families for the first year of their child’s life to help them buy a car seat, to help them buy baby clothes, a crib. There’s the work that we’re gonna do that is about investing in the American family around affordable housing, a big issue in our country right now. So there are a number of things on day one.

Wow! Two more paragraphs and another 120-plus words and only vague phrases that have no actual referent and nothing that could be counted or measured later to test if she will do that on day one. The one specific item: “extending the child tax credit to $6,000″ is something that they have already done, this just raises the amount a bit. So why wait? If it is important to do, and if you are already Vice-President, why not do it now?

What a model for how to use many words to say nothing! Like so many politicians, with this kind of hypnotic language, you can promise the moon without being held accountable for anything specific. This is the kind of language that needs to change in Politics if we are to change the world. And it would not be hard. With even just a small exposure of NLP— a person can learn to be a lot more specific and precise. Of course, politicians tend to not want to do that. Why? My guess is a fear of accountability.

The cure here is the Meta-Model of Language that you can find in The Structure of Magic (1975), User’s Manual of the Brain (1999) and Communication Magic (1997).

THE UNSANITY OF
IDEOLOGICAL THINKING

There was a tragedy. You probably heard about it on the news. Actually it occurred January 7, 2023 and it resulted in the tragic death of Tyre Nichols, a 29 year old black man. The officers claimed to have stopped Nichols for reckless driving in Memphis Tennessee. Then several things went wrong and it resulted in a tragedy for everyone.

The first thing that went wrong was that Nichols began resisting the officers and fighting with them. Bad decision! So after pulling him from his car, they used pepper spray and a taser on him. Then as Nichols continued to resist, he managed to break away from them. That’s when the next thing that went wrong occurred on the officers part. That’s because when they caught him, they were not in the right state and they beat him for three minutes, punching and kicking him in the head and striking him on the back with a baton and they did that while he was restrained. More really bad decisions! Afterwards Nichols was hospitalized in critical condition and he then died three days later.

Now all five of the Police officers were also black. Two were new to the force having been hired after the Police lowered standards for hiring in order to get more people on the force (another bad decision!). As of January 20, all five officers have been fired from the force. Not only that, but in addition, three firefighters, two emergency medical technicians and a lieutenant who attended the scene were relieved of duty and subsequently fired for failing to conduct an adequate patient assessment of Nichols. Two other police officers were also later relieved of duty.

That was the event—that’s what happened. But what does it mean? What explains it? The simplest and most obvious explanation is that it was an interplay of two sets of forces—on the part of Tyre Nichols, his resistance and refusal to cooperate. He should have known better. Anyone pulled over should know better. Cooperation always makes things go better. Talking it out to determine the truth of a situation is always the best choice.

On the part of the officers, they seemed completely incompetent about knowing how to subdue a person and how to do so showing respect to the person while trying to control a situation. Several videos have been publicized on television and on the internet since this event showing simple trainable techniques for subduing a person without causing bodily harm. But these officers apparently did not have that training and fell back on more savage behavior.

As noted in the previous posts, experience and meaning are two very different things. What happens consists of the sensory-based facts. Meaning comes after that and goes to a person’s interpretations. And with determining the validity of an interpretation, we have to look to the person’s ability to be as objective as possible and the cognitive biases that predispose a person to read into events things that are not there. William of Ockham insightly said:
“With all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.”

The simplest explanation here—unintelligent resistance plus professional incompetence equals tragedy death and firing. What a disastrous combination! By way of contrast, a dozen or more so-called journalists on the mainstream media used their biases and ideology to interpret this event. Unbelievably they were able to distort things to such an extent that they concluded that the five black police officers were “white supremists” of all things(!) and/or “contaminated by white racism.” And as ridiculous as that is, they expressed that ideology with a straight face. That’s how blinding any ideology can be, how unsane. For them, interpretation comes before facts. And, let the facts be damned if they don’t support our ideology.
[Who has said such non-sense? The former ESPN talking head Jemele Hill was one who rushed to blame White supremacy. CNN’s Van Jones echoed the sentiment, as did Democrat Reps. Maxwell Frost of Florida, and Mondaire Jones of New York, and Black Lives Matter activist Bree Newsome.]

There was no racism in that event—there was incompetence. There was stupid resistance. There was hiring of officers who had lower standards. Simple as that. To read more into it than that demands that a person rely on his ideology, prejudices, and biases—the opposite of critical thinking. The solution is to teach people how to truly think, and to think clearly and objectively. And that’s what the Meta-Model of Language is designed to facilitate.

BROKE WITH WOKE

“Woke” and “wokeness”—relatively new words, so what is it? What does it refer to? It seems to have arisen as a slang word representing by some to indicate the embracing of progressive activism. Merriam-Webster added it to the dictionary (2017): “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).”
“Woke is a slang term that is easing into the mainstream from some varieties of a dialect called African American Vernacular English,” according to Merriam-Webster.

Now originally, the term referred to social and political injustices and to that extent, I can sympathize with it and see the value. But it no longer means that. Today “woke” seems to be a mixture of radical and mostly unintelligent activism, along with some socialism thrown in for good measure. To that concoction add a good dose of narcissism and rigid dogmatism. Today, as an ideology, it mostly propagates itself as inevitable and unquestionable. And why? Because in that way those who promote it don’t have to debate or argue for it. In this way they can avoid critical thinking (which they seem to be allergic to) and do not have to examine the legitimacy of their ideology. And why would the do that? Because they know that it would not stand up to scrutiny. So with an attitude of dogmatism and authoritarianism, they declare what they declare, arrogantly assuming that there are no other perspectives.

But, of course, as with everything, there are! There are many alternatives and much better ones. And as one person who disagrees with the conclusions of the woke crowd, I am fully ready to engage those ideas and to question them. And why would I be so ready to do that? Because when you go woke, you go broke. The woke ideas will bankrupt you in every way— mentally, emotionally, relationally, and economically. Because the assumptions in “woke” are not even intelligently sound, thinking in that way undermines clear and precise thinking as it gives place to lots of cognitive distortions.

It also inter-personally bankrupts. Already we can see the fruits “woke” ideology produces— prejudice against anyone who disagree. A bullying attitude that seeks to “cancel” anyone with an opposite position. An arrogance of being a know-it-all, the hate language and the language of violence against conservatives. Pretending to be against racism, they actually promote a new and more vicious form of racism. Saying that they dislike stereotypes, they stereotype their opponents. All of this is full of incongruencies and hypocrisies.

What probably started out with some good positive intentions has turned really sour. It has created and is creating more division, intolerance, and partisanship. “Woke” people on school boards, in universities as professors or decision-makers have subverted education and transformed it into brainwashing. Once sensitive to injustice, they perpetuate what is unjust on parents who disagree, students who want to question things, and conservatives who would be invited into schools and universities to offer a differing opinion.

Those who believe in the “woke” ideology ought to truly wake up so that they can truly see the damage that they are doing with that ideology. They need to wake up to realize that every ideology is a belief system and not a set of facts. The person who forgets that or who does not know that, then operates in the dark confusing their map with the territory. They then over-identify with the ideology, personalizing it, so now any question of their ideology is treated as a personal attack. Then to that they become ridiculously self-righteous, talk as if they are the victims, and boldly victimize the person who simply asks a question.

The so-called “reasoning” that goes on in “woke” ideology is like the circular and self-defeating “logic” during the ancient witch hunts. You accuse someone of being a witch or non-“work” and they deny it. Their denial is then quoted as proof that they are heretics to “wokism.” In fact, the more vehement their denial, the more convinced they are that you are a danger to them and the more willing they are to burn the witch.

Basic NLP and basic General Semantics (Korzybski) and basic Neuro-Semantics starts from the position that whatever you think and believe is your mental map and no matter how accurate parts of it is, it is not the territory. It is not “real.” It is a representation, a fallible human opinion, and it not only should be tested and question, but it must be constantly tested and questioned. Even scripture says, “Test all things, hold firm that which is good.”

Democratic freedom begins with the power to question. It is in questioning, debating, continually checking on facts, and collaborating with others that we come to as good as understanding as we can— open to new facts emerging that will demand we keep adjusting our understandings. That’s the true heart of science, the true heart of education, the true center of an open and critical mind. Let all who are “woke” wake up to that realization.

The attached video is another voice speaking out against “wokism,” it’s a video that has gone viral and when you see it, you’ll know why.

DIVING DEEPER INTO THE HEART
OF GUN VIOLENCE

Thinking superficially will lead you to look at a gun, which does the immediate violence in a mass shooting, and, presto, you will suddenly and absolutely know the problem. You know the problem and the whole problem—guns. Of course, at this point you are thinking very shallowly. You are not considering who is holding the gun, or pointing it, or why. You are also not considering the context of the shooter—his immediate context, his mental health or the lack of it, his ability or inability to cope with reality, his inner anger, rage, depression, mythologies, prejudices, etc.

Thinking a bit more systemically, we need to consider three of the key factors: the person, the weapon, and the environment. To focus exclusively on the tool for the violence (in this case a gun) is to ignore the much more important variables— the context and the person.
∙ Why are almost all mass shooters young men?
∙ Why are they young men with a history of adaptive problems? (Violence, drugs, alcohol, gangs, domestic abuse, etc.)
∙ Why are they individuals with mental disorders?

These are the questions that need to be asked. With all of the strict gun laws and background checks that have been passed, the solution is not more of the same. Why? Because the problem is not external; it is not the gun. A person who wants to kill can use a knife, a hammer, a car, a bomb— all sorts of external devices will do. The problem is internal. The problem is inside the person who wants to kill.

Yes something is seriously wrong, but what’s wrong are not the gun laws. We already have laws that prevent guns getting into the wrong hands. What we don’t have are laws that identify those wrong hands. We need “red flag” laws for that. Even more we need to address the environment in which young men grow up. Today they are exposed to an incredible amount of violence on TV, in the movies, on the internet, sometimes on their streets. But where are they to learn how to interpret the difference between make-believe movie violence and real violence? We need to do more to address the idea that violence solves problems. It never does.

We also need to address the home environment where there is far too often a lack of respect for self and others, discipline, focus on self-improvement. We need to address the school environment where there is a failure to teach the most important things—how to learn, how to care about learning, how to learn about oneself, how to care about others, how to grow up and be a moral person, etc.

The problem is an inside–out problem. What happens outside is but a symptom and/or expression of the inside world. And that’s where the problem is in these young men. In a book that I’m working on at the moment on Predictive Thinking, I wrote the following on the subject of hope. In presenting a Hope Spiral, one that can go up as well as down, I wrote this:
“If frustration is not positively dealt with, it tends to become a toxic form of anger—unuseful and destructive. That’s when it spirals downward. People then turn their anger against the world, against others, the government, God, or whoever (or whatever) they think is the cause of the interference. This anger, is not only unuseful, it is more typically counter-productive. And if the anger finds no effective and legitimate expression that helps to deal with the block, the anger becomes toxic. It then becomes rage. Such rage is then anger lashing out, usually mindlessly and that, in turn, creates even more problems for the person. It ruins relationships and resources.
Rage in the context of loss of hope often results in destructiveness. It could be destructiveness against oneself (i.e., suicide, drugs, alcoholism). It could be destructiveness against others and society (i.e., violence, crime, gangs, nihilism). These are expressions of hopelessness. People of hope do not do these things; only those without hope. Hope immunizes us from those forms of destructiveness. Hope is the cure for being human and living humanly.” (Predictive Thinking, p. 116, to be published in a month or two)

Now take a high-school drop-out such as the kid in Uvalde, Texas, a kid who was bullied by others, and who apparently had learned that violence is a solution. He was also a person who was undoubtedly living without hope. And living without hope can turn a person ugly and bitter inside so that it becomes mindless rage and violence. That’s the problem we have to solve. We have to create cultures of hope. Problems that have their source on the inside have to be solved by an inside solution. That’s where we need to look.

For more, see the two newest books from Neuro-Semantics: www.neurosemantics.com/shop/

Inside–Out: Empowered from Within (2022)
Inspiring the Heart (2022)