I know I commented on the last thread about how the lessons that guy wrote gave me issues, but after reading through the last free one I began to seriously question whether he read knows anything about the world and people to really comment on it:
" Finding neutral has a lot to do with refraining. Well, it doesn’t look like much from the outside, however, there’s a number of little, subtle things that are happening: your consciousness shifts, your point of view shifts, the way you communicate changes, your awareness level is being raised to your internal dialogue as well as to what other people say. And all of these things prepare you to explore that belief system further so that it becomes very easy to dismantle.
The specific exercise I’m inviting you to do in this session, and practice periodically throughout your day, or as much as you can is to refrain from agreeing or disagreeing with people wherever possible. And this might not sound like much, but it’s a very subtle art, that as you master controlling the beliefs, your point of view and your mind, it grants you flexibility and control over your words, and what you believe or don’t believe.
I’ll give you an example of a story. And I’ve heard various versions of this. And one version is that there’s a Zen master who lives next to this family. And it’s an old, ancient time. And one of the families in that village is able to capture a couple of wild horses. And the father of the family says: “Let’s celebrate, this is wonderful, we’ve got these horses now. We’ll train them, and they’ll help us till the field,” and he’s telling the Zen master this, and the Zen master says: “Well, good news, bad news, who knows, we’ll see.” And so the framer goes on about trying to train these horses, and his son is working on breaking one of the horses, and he gets thrown from the horse and breaks his leg. And the father is sad and dejected, and he says: “This is terrible news, this is a terrible happening, my son has had a broken leg.” And all this happens in that ancient time when it wasn’t so normal just to go to the hospital, and to have it put in the cast and healed, so his son might be crippled for life. And the farmer’s going with great pity and sorrow to the Zen master, and the Zen master says: “Well, good news, bad news, who knows, we’ll see.” And war breaks out, and an army comes to take all the young men off to war, except this man’s son, who isn’t able to go because he has a hurt leg. And the farmer is telling the Zen master: “This is wonderful, this is fantastic, it’s so fortunate that he had that fall from the horse,” and the old Zen master says: “Well, good news, bad news, who knows, we’ll see.” You see the farmer was jumping to a conclusion and was making an assumption about whatever the situation was, based on that immediate moment assessment, and the Zen master was being more flexible and willing to take a larger timeline on things, and not assuming that one event or situation define the future, or that you can assess the whole future, based on one interpretation. The Zen master had flexibility in his point of view. He didn’t agree with the villager and also didn’t disagree. He was respectful, and in this way could avoid conflict with the farmer, and yet, and this may be the most important point, he did not invest his faith in any particular story, opinion, or belief that the farmer was offering him.
That ability to refrain from believing the stories somebody’s telling you is what I’m going to invite you to do in this exercise. When people communicate with you, one of the things that they often will do is to get you to believe their side of the story or to get you to disagree with them. You can say, that in some ways in that latter case, there’s a side of their personality looking to engage in a conflict – that way they can defend their point of view even harder. It’s one of the things that happen, regardless of why people are doing it.
So, your role, your mission is to refrain from agreeing and from disagreeing with people, when they’re offering you an opinion or an opportunity to take or not to take a side in something. And that amount of refrain will require you to do a couple of things: 1) It will require you to pay close attention to the words that people are using; 2) It will require you to pay closer attention to the words you say back to them. And this is something that’s so usually just an automatic habit of the words that come out of our mouth. So, I’m inviting you to heighten your awareness of the way you use your words in conversations, to become an observer of your own words. This will help you to become the observer of your own thoughts and shift your point of view. As you move to be an observer of what people say and how they say it, and start slightly shifting the language of how you respond, you will refrain from agreeing or disagreeing, which is to say you will refrain from putting your faith or your personal power into an agreement with them.
And so, building your personal power is a big part of this assignment, and you build it by not wasting it. It’s similar to what we’ve learned about in the “Abdication of power” session, where I had you to refrain from really believing that the source of your emotions comes from outside you, to refrain from believing that story of “He makes me so, she makes me so,” to refrain from putting your faith, your personal power into that story, and/or at least to start questioning that story, and through questioning and being a skeptic of that story, to refrain from putting your personal power in it, so that you have more personal power. In the current exercise I’m inviting you to do the same kind of thing, but this time to do it in the conversations you have with other people. This is a step up and a preparation to really doing it with your self.
One of the things that happens in the mind is that there’s one part of the mind that will make a proposal. It will say: “God, that was really stupid, I shouldn’t have done that!” And another part in the mind, another voice in our head will agree and say: “God, that was really stupid, I’m such an idiot.” So, one part of the mind is making the proposal and the other part of the mind is agreeing to it. And this often happens below the radar of what we’re conscious of. One way to start seeing easier this kind of internal conversation, where we reinforce or sometimes create beliefs in our own head, is to really observe how we do this with other people and then refrain from doing it with them. This way we’ll be more prepared to see, find, discover those agreements we make within ourselves, in our own mind, and unravel those. So we’ll start with the obvious ones, and then we’ll work our way out to the internal ones.
There’s a number of ways that people propose agreements. And they can make from very simple proposals to very complex ones. Some of these proposals can really hook our attention: the ones about family, friends, work, politics, environment and other very emotional issues, where perhaps we’ve already invested a lot of faith and belief, so that we are charged up about them. In these areas we’ve got our opinions ready to go, and we are in a hurry to share them with people. Then there are the other ones that are a little innocuous ones that go on throughout the day: a comment about what’s somebody’s wearing, what they look like, about how the weather is, about another person in the office, about a sports team, about something that’s light conversation. I’m going to invite you to do you best to refrain from agreeing or disagreeing in any one of those circumstances.
So, it might seem that someone makes a comment about the weather, whether it’s good or bad, and that’s a nice conversation starter, but they are asking you to agree, to put your faith into the description about something that’s right in front of you. And even if it’s accurate, there’re ways to lend yourself to having a conversation there without having to put your faith in it, so that you can keep recovering and not wasting your personal power. And so you might respond with: “You’ve got no argument with me.” And that suggests that you agree, when in fact what you’re really doing is not taking a side, without agreeing or disagreeing, and they get to believe you agree with them. Someone makes a big blunder in a sports game, and that’s the kind of the conversation you have on Monday morning about who did won on the ball field. Then you can listen and you can make a similar comment. You can say: “Oh, yeah I saw it, I couldn’t believe he’d done that.” So there’re ways to subtly stay a part of the conversation and yet shift your words slightly, so that you aren’t investing personal power into these descriptions, these kind of a gossip, these kind of agreements. It’s going to require that you operate and communicate with people in a heightened state of awareness, but this will help later. And you can say that these little conversations might seem like no big deal. “Oh, let’s just continue on with those, I’m not really investing much of my personal power.” But the more important part of it, that you might not pay attention to, is that these really small conversations are actually easier to be seen. So, when someone gives you an opinion about something that you have a lot of beliefs about (a family member, a drama in a family, a political agenda you’re passionate about, an environment agenda you’re passionate about), you’re very quick to agree or disagree, you have lots of beliefs already supporting you and you jump right in on the bandwagon. And then all your beliefs systems are lined up and push you to agree or disagree, and take a side. And those beliefs can be kind of powerful. So it’s easier to start with the small ones.
It’s also easier to start with the small ones, not just cause we can more easily see them and refrain, and practice there, so that when the big ones come up we will have practiced to be better at it, but very often the small ones lead to the bigger ones. I’ll give you two examples of this:
-
I went to a sales training seminar when I was doing a lot of sales. And this really incredible salesman was giving us presentation, and he was exposing these techniques and training us these techniques, and it was quite surprising what the really skillful salesmen do, and how subtle they do it, so that you don’t notice. And let’s take the example of buying a car. Let’s say you’re test driving a car and you’re out for the drive, and the salesman’s there, and he’s asking you what you like or don’t like, what kind of price range you’re looking for, how much you want to spend a month, what are the most important features of a car and what’s really not important, whether it’s the car color or the gas mileage, or the safety and the number of the airbags, visibility, seeing other cars on the road. All of these things come into play. And he’s just asking you how you feel about all those things, what’s important to you and not important to you. So, now you’re outside, sitting at the table and he’s asking you: “You liked the ride in the car, it felt good, didn’t it?” And he’s telling you what you’ve already told him. So he’s just asking you this to confirm that this was what you said, so that there is a consistency there, and so that you say yes that’s what you told him, cause you’re not going to change that, so that you don’t look silly by being contradictory. And he says: “And the gas mileage, it’s the good mileage for what you’re looking for, isn’t it?” And you have already agreed with what’s he’s telling you, so you say: “Yes.” “And you’ve checked the safety features, and they even show up well on the insurance rate you get for this car. So that works favorably for you, doesn’t it?” And he already knows the answers for the questions he’s asking you and he’s getting “yes”. He’s getting “yes” about all he asks. And finally he says: “And these are the payments you’d like to keep it under, and if I go to my manager and let you get this car, that covers everything that you want, under this price that you want, then you’ll have to agree that you get everything you want for the price you wanted, would you?” “Yes.” He is inching you with “yes”, by “yes”, by “yes”, by “yes”, to larger and larger commitment. So, now, if you all of a sudden change your mind, because you haven’t test driven all the cars you want to test drive, that’s not a part of the equation, cause he’s giving you all the car you want for the price you want, and it’d be very inconsistent in this point for you to say “no”. Cause we learnt to be consistent in this society. We don’t want to look contradictory. And then he’s not going to ask you “if” you take the car, but he’ll say: “Well, I’m going to go to my manager, and I’ll see if I can get you that price, and if I can, we can get this car today.” And off he goes. That salesman, by getting you to commit to a number of small agreements, has lined you up and he’s got so much momentum, and you’ve invested so much of your faith into: “This is a good car and that’s what I want,” that now for you to change your mind, for you to be flexible, to take a different perspective, to change the direction that you head at, you’ve got to unravel all those little agreements that you’ve built up, and you have to break each one. So, this example shows how all those subtle agreements that don’t seem like a big deal, that happen in a casual conversation, can add up and take us in the direction that maybe we don’t really want fully to commit to yet.
-
Second experience was that at one point I was dating a woman, and she was an attorney. And she was very well skilled in this Socratic method that they teach in the law school, and practice in the court room. And part of that process is to provide a set of assumptions that then they build on, and they ask the next question and they build on that, and they ask the next question and they give you a very specific set of “Well if this is the case, then you have to admit that that means A, and if that’s the case then that means B, and if A and B are the case, then this concludes C, and if C is the case, with A and B supporting it, then D…” And by the time they get to F, by these steps and logic, if you take all those assumptions and you add them up, then you’ll have to agree with F, or else you’ll look kind of silly. At the surface anyways. Well, it’s a very different experience when you date an attorney, and they use this technique on you, cause I would have this technique used on me, and by the time I’d agreed to several of these steps in this conversation I would end up feeling guilty and wrong for stuff that I had done or hadn’t done in this relationship. And I started to be wary whenever she started this after a while, and I’d try side step number one. And I wasn’t aware of what I was doing at the time, but I knew that if I started down this road, I was going to end up with guilt at the end, or shame or something – by the number of agreements that would build up.
And so this is how small agreements that we make and put our personal power into, build an agenda. They build a structure of agreements, and these agreements lead us to draw further conclusions that are bigger, have more of an emotional impact, and are harder to shift or get out of, without appearing stupid or inconsistent, or without judging ourselves, which we also don’t want to do. So, once we’ve gone so far, we don’t want to change it, we don’t want to appear to be a flip flopper or inconsistent, when in fact even though we agreed to essentially A, B, C and D in principle, that doesn’t mean we agreed to G. But fear of self judgment and of what we might look like, or fear of what others will think of us, might be one of the reasons we’ll continue with that logic, even though it no longer fits who we are or what our motivation was.
So, how do we have conversation with people who are proposing for us to agree with them, without disagreeing with them? Let me give a couple of examples of this that how you deal with it will depend on the situation or the person. Roughly, we’re going to have to comment, but then preferably kick the ball back into their court. If someone’s talking about the political or the environmental situation, we can say: “You know I don’t know the whole story about that, what do you know about it?”, or we can say: “I don’t have a really definite opinion about that, yet I’m still learning about it. What do you think?” You see, very often, and you might find this rather funny as you observe this, people aren’t in a real need of your opinion. Instead, it’s a beautiful opportunity for them to give theirs, and they can’t wait to get the conversation back into their court, so that they can tell you what it is, and sound intelligent doing so. Another comment, while someone’s sharing their opinion with you, might be: “That’s interesting,” and you can also ask them to tell you something more about that, or you can say: “I’ve never really thought about it that way,” and then ask them something more.
So, this is the process of letting people talk and inviting them to share more, without you having to take a side, agree or disagree. Part of the art of doing this is to do this in a way that other people don’t notice what’s you’re doing – you want to stay below the radar, you don’t want to appear evasive, you don’t want people to catch on that you’re being evasive, cause that then starts a whole other line of questionings that makes it more difficult and possibly even uncomfortable. Perhaps somewhere down the road, you may want to share with some close friends what you’re doing and why. But lots of people will probably find it strange, probably because they don’t have the background you have, and you can’t take the time to tell them why you’re doing what you’re doing. And it also might be kind of hard to explain without them listening to a few hours of audio.
One of the things that you may find about this process of shifting the way you communicate and the agreements you make, and how you make them, is that this process is uncomfortable. One of the reasons it is so is that to agree with others is a very common social dynamic that we learned a long ago. We learned in a lot of cases to particularly agree with the authority because of what they said because if we didn’t agree with mom or dad when we were little, they could punish us. So, agreeing seemed like a good idea because we automatically trusted them, and also seemed a good idea because the other option seemed to disagree, and that had consequences. So, as we went through school and then later through business, we found out that it was easier to go along in order to get along. “Don’t be the squeaky wheel.” And because our mind is structured in such a way that we tend to think that to agree or to disagree are the only two options available, we don’t look for the third option, which is to have a neutral position. It’s like the role Switzerland played in the World War II – the role of being respectful to the both sides. It’s a very respected position that will keep you from creating enemies through disagreements and from getting into ally relationships that can because you trouble later on. So, there’s an option to neither agree nor to disagree – it’s an option of refraining from spending your personal power on people’s agendas and on their conceptual ideas.
One of the facets of doing this came up in the story about pizza, that happened with the friend, a client of mine, in a pizza restaurant. We were having pizza, and he’s like: “This is the best pizza in the world.” Is that an agreement? Should I say that I agree to that? And so we got into this discussion about the nature of that subtle agreement, and what it sets you up for. And it’s a pretty bad practice. For one, because his love of that pizza meant it was the best pizza in the world to him. And it’s very different from being the best pizza in the world. You see, if he says: “This is my favorite pizza in the world, it’s the one I like the best,” – no one can argue with him, it’s his personal opinion and he’s stating it as such. But if he says that it’s the best pizza in the world, that opens up the door for everybody else who’s got their “Chicago pizza” agenda, their “New York pizza” agenda, their this or that pizza agenda to say: “Oh, no, you don’t know about pizza, this pizza over here is the best pizza in the world.” It’s almost like you’re inviting conflict from everybody who has a belief about pizza when you say: “This is the best pizza in the world” in such a way as if it’s the blanket law for the world or the universe. But if you say: “This is my favorite pizza,” then other people’s beliefs systems won’t have a conflict with you, and you can avoid disagreement. And that’s just because you phrased it in terms of what is your favorite.
The interesting thing about the shift in how you describe your pizza, your car, your job, your political agenda is that when you recognize that your beliefs about what works for you, what’s your favor, what’s the best for you, what does’t work for you are all about you, and you’re stating it as “This is my beliefs system, this is what’s good for me, this is what’s right for me,” not trying to apply it to “This is what’s right for the world, best for the world, this is what others should be doing because it’s the right thing to do,” you don’t take your personal opinion, you don’t attempt to make a law for other people, and this allows you to avoid a lot of disagreements, conflict, argument. People will respect that you have your opinion about whatever it is that works for you. Your beliefs are yours, the way you are living is right for you. But when you say: “This is the environmental policy that is right for people, this is what we have to do politically,” you’re basically saying: “This is right,” and you are investing in that “This is the better way, and anybody else who disagrees with me has a lesser way.” And you’ll start noticing it’s kind of disrespectful, or at least that’s very often how other people interpret it, or they become competitive or argumentative, or you have conflicts.
Another interesting thing about that is that when you have an agreement, a structure in your mind of “This is the way it is in the world,” they become very difficult to break or to change. Take for example: “I’m the worst person in the world.” That’s a very different agreement from “I have a belief where I think I’m the worst person in the world.” See, the latter is very personal, it exists only in your beliefs system, according to your opinion, and it allows you to recognize that other people in the world have different beliefs systems, different opinions, and you recognize that all you have to do to change it is to change your belief system and what you believe about yourself. You don’t have to change the way the world sees you. But in the former, when you say: “I’m the worst person in the world,” there’s the assumption that the whole world sees you as the worst person in the world. Oh, now you have to change the whole world’s opinion of you, and it’s extremely difficult.
So, the shift is in how you describe things when people are attempting to pull you into agreements of “He’s such a jerk,” that’s a flat out “Everyone would agree he’s such a jerk. Don’t you agree?” You might have a personal opinion and you might phrase it as such. You might say: “Oh, I can see how you see him that way,” or “You’ve got no argument with me.” Then that person will take it as if you agree, even though you don’t. You’re just saying you don’t disagree. But that phrase, that description “He’s such a jerk,” assumes that everybody in the world has that opinion, and that it is a fixed characteristic, instead of “I think he’s such a jerk,” or “I see what he’s doing and it really makes him look like a jerk.” Those are very different connotations. One is the absolute law and the other is just limited to a personal opinion.
So, wherever you can, in those places that you’re giving an opinion, and you’re going to agree with someone and disagree with someone, make sure that it’s from the perspective of your own point of view, and not in the context of an absolute “This is the way the world is.” Because the latter is about investing a lot of faith in a huge agreement, and it gives you very little flexibility. Whereas if you phrase or comment something in a way that it’s your own perspective or your own experience, then you have a greater flexibility to change your point of view. And if you want to change your agreements, they are much easier to change, because they are limited within the realm of your own belief system, instead of “Ok, this is the whole structure of the world that has to change for me to see it differently.”
But there’re two areas where this refraining from agreeing or disagreeing with other people doesn’t apply: work and business, and raising children.
-
On you job, what you get paid for is to give an opinion (assumed your job is really about giving an opinion, and not some other kind of work that you have to do). For example: you’re consulting on a project, and your boss says: “What do you think we ought to do?” He’s paying you to give your insight and your input to this process, and you owe him your best opinion. One way to do that is to say: “Well, from my perspective this is what I see,” as opposed to saying: “This is what we should do,” which now could offend others, or they can just have a reaction to it. So if you say: “Oh, this is how I see it,” then you are less likely to have a conflict, and you’re allowing the flexibility to change it if other people come up with points that you weren’t considering. Of course, this isn’t always the case. Whenever you couch things and a personal perspective that way, they generally don’t have this much impact, they aren’t as powerful. So, depending on how much authority you want to put in your words, how strong you want to make them, you’ll choose how you say it, provided you’re aware of the words coming out of your mouth and of how other people will interpret them, depending on the phrasing you use. So, in work, in business, your opinion, your input, your expertise, it’s pretty much required.
-
The other place where you will have to engage in agreements and disagreements is in family, at home. If you’re raising teenagers and your teenage son or daughter wants to go out to a party and stay there till 4 o’clock in the morning, then your role as a parent towards them is not best served by saying: “Ok, I’m not going to agree and I’m not going to disagree.” That’s not a healthy parenting, cause there need to be clear boundaries about what’s okay and what’s not okay, and they need to be communicated clearly. And if your son or daughter disagrees, that’s ok. That’s ok with you to disagree with them. This can be a place where the benefits stem to have very structured guidelines about what’s okay and what’s not okay.
But outside of that, do your best to refrain from agreeing and disagreeing with people. Find a way to slip around the conversation covertly. With “Oh, that’s interesting, I’ve never thought about it that way before,” or “You’ve got no argument with me about that,” or perhaps “You know, I can see why you have that opinion about them.” These are all ways to respond, reply, engage, without putting your faith, your personal power into the opinion that belongs to somebody else, the opinion that’s very often structured as “This is the absolute law for the world, and this is how everybody should see it,” which is just dangerous, cause you’re no doubt going to run up against other people who see it differently. It’s a set up for conflict when you take a side or when you disagree with the side.
And after all, perhaps three or four or five years down the road you might see it differently, like that Zen master who had a larger perspective. More than once I’ve been wrong about people. More than once I’ve missed in my initial assessment, and in my secondary, and even after my assessment of six months, what people were about, what they were capable of.
So, start small, start in places where there’s not a lot of resistance to doing this, be covert, work up to bigger ones in the conversations you have with people. That will prepare you to then be more of an observer of an internal dialogue that goes on in your head, in the part of your mind that proposes an agreement, the part of your mind that accepts that proposal as true. And you’ll be better able to step back from what you say about things, what opinions you have and what thoughts you have about things, and you’ll be better able to be a neutral party, to not agree with a comment in your mind and not disagree, to not engage in a conflict back and forth with the different beliefs in your head, to step back and be neither a foe nor an ally to either side of those beliefs, to be neutral.