Great article explains how people get stuck in a belief pattern (aka "The Matrix" of conventional reality) and can not see outside of it easily. Once certain beliefs such as "there is an honor code in governemnt that they never lie even when it might be convenient" take root it becomes nearly impossible to question what the government or offical media says about anything.

These people, it turns out, are operating from what I called The Gullible Mind. It is a psychological processing malfunction that filters out information based on its source rather than its integrity. People who operate from The Gullible Mind tend to have misplaced trust in governments, institutions, mainstream news networks, doctors, scientists or anyone who wears the garb of apparent authority.

This entry was posted on May 11, 2011 at 3:29 PM and has received 1378 views. There are currently 0 comments. Print this entry.

Why do we do what we do? And if we don't like what we do how can we change it? Or how can we get more of what we do like? In this TED talk Tony Robbins discusses the "invisible forces" that motivate everyone's actions -- and high-fives Al Gore in the front row.

This entry was posted on January 4, 2011 at 3:27 PM and has received 1140 views. There are currently 0 comments. Print this entry.

Recently a friend suggested renaming "Global Warming" to "Climate Chaos".  Michael Rios wrote:

"Who doesn't like being warm?  And when the warming is
just a couple of degrees, who can tell the difference between 76 degrees and 78?  None of these are likely to generate concern in the average listener.

The issue that matters isn't temperature itself; it is the consequences of those changes that are important.  So while "global warming" is technically correct, better and more meaningful framings would have been "global climate instability" or "climate chaos."

Framing the debate by choosing what you call the issue is a key way to win a debate before you start. It is something that right wing issue groups have been doing well for years now, using NLP to help frame issues. Perhaps it is time for left wing groups to start using this technology more. Perhaps it is time to email Al Gore and suggest a reframe for global warming like the one Michael Rios gave above

"Strange title for a New York Times bestseller, isn't it, but this little book has lit a fire under the Democratic party which had no idea how it lost the last election. The author, George Lakoff, is a linguist. He studies language and how it works in society and especially inside of our heads.

In this 120-page book, Lakoff argues that the Republicans won by framing the debate about everything in the election. And framing is so powerful a tool that it got people to vote for Bush and against their own self interest. "Many Americans voted their moral identity and values, often at the expense of the economic interests." Such is the power of framing.

Howard Dean, in the foreword, says: "Language matters. Americans who want to be first to set the agenda need to be quick, and must understand the use of language."

Whether you're a politician running for election, a corporate leader trying to shift the corporate direction, or just a parent trying to orient your children, you might want to learn more about framing and reframing.

This entry was posted on February 18, 2010 at 4:00 PM and has received 1280 views. There are currently 0 comments. Print this entry.

At my honesty salon last night we came up with the concept of levels of anger and how languaging affects how we feel. We had these levels:

• homicidal
• rage
• anger
• irritation
• peeved

There seems to be a big gap in levels between irritation and anger - any suggestions on what fits in there?

I wrote out similar levels for other emotions fear, sadness, happy, apathy, love and put them in a circle with levels from the center. Has anyone seen anything like this elsewhere?  Update 12/10/11 - I found this Plutchiks wheel of emotions:

This entry was posted on September 20, 2007 at 9:51 PM and has received 1490 views. There are currently 0 comments. Print this entry.