Seeing People for Who They Really Are

When I teach students, I use an approach called "mastery learning." It means they do not go on to the next skill or topic until they can verbalize the last one taught (or express it in writing) without any kind of assistance. (I regard multiple choice examinations as a big joke—though I admittedly love to take them when qualifying for anything!)

And on this point, Chase Hughes and I agree. For on page xvii he writes…

If you get kidnapped and stripped of your belongings, I want you to still have these skills. They should be in your head, and not in a book. Take the super powers you're about to learn and bring them to life. Nothing you're about to learn belongs locked in a notebook somewhere—these skills are designed to reside in your head.
 
Chase says we can trace all of our failures back to three things…

COMMUNICATION
We can trace many of our failures back to a failure to persuade someone or a group of people into adopting our way of thinking.

OBSERVATION
An inability to recognize truth can be responsible for many issues in our lives; and a failure to pick up on behavioral clues or red flags (not only in people but also in situations) can lead to our downfall, or at the very least, result in our finding ourselves in some very unpleasant circumstances.

BEHAVIOR
The way we speak, walk, talk, move and interact with people tells them a lot about us; and sometimes we set the stage for our own failure by (unintentionally) acting or carrying ourselves in ways that lead people to form negative views or impressions of us.
 
Hughes says that in the military they have a common phrase he's heard thousands of times:

"Knowing is the enemy of learning."

Again, I can't help but think that the above easily applies to this very forum.

He writes that certain people have an insatiable appetite for information and knowledge, but are very rarely able to perform the techniques. The difference between academic knowledge and real-world skills is so vast that it could be a book in and of itself.

If we sat down with the top 100 people in their fields, they are not likely to be the people who have read every book on techniques, tactics, and tricks. Rather, they would be the people who have through-the-roof, hands-on, practical talent, competence and ability.

This is why I stopped entertaining advice or suggestions coming from most ET members or humoring them with responses. Until and unless you can SHOW me that what you do is more profitable than what I do, I couldn't care less about what you KNOW.

Let's put it to the test, and may the best approach win!

If it's yours, I will be happy to listen to you THEN, but not a second before.
 
upload_2023-3-2_9-43-47.png


A study published by Albert Mehrabian in the 1970s suggested that 93% of interpersonal communication is nonverbal and that the words we use are only 7% of what is going on in a conversation. However, Chase and other experts (such a Mark Bowden, Scott Rouse, Greg Hartley and Tonya Reiman) believe this to be a body language myth, as Bowden calls it. Otherwise, people would be able to communicate with individuals from all over the world, even without knowing the other party's language, so long as the two of them were interacting face to face—and of course, this is not the case.

Chase estimates that oral language is actually about ⅔ of our communication. Obviously, that would make nonverbal interactions responsible for ⅓. The only problem is, he then goes on to say that "somewhere around 66% of communication with people is nonverbal."

That comes to MORE than 100% of human communication (≈133%)!

So then, I'm going to assume that this was a typographical error, and that what he intended to say was that somewhere around 33% of communication with people is nonverbal.

The reason for this, he claims, is because our brains evolved in three parts. Even so, given that I regard the notion that we human beings evolved from reptiles as little more than a ridiculous childlike fairy tale made up by supercilious intellectuals desperate not to believe in the existence of God, I take his explanation with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, I will summarize it (in detail or in brief) in my next post.
 
THE HUMAN BRAIN

According to Chase, for millions of years (if not more) human beings did not have language, so we communicated nonverbally—the same way dogs do. But over time, our brains evolved, from…
  • the reptilian brain, to
  • the mammalian brain, to
  • the neocortex
The reptilian brain, also called the Basal Ganglia [basal ganglion?] or brain stem, was first. The nature of its functions are basically for survival… instinctive responses, impulses and physical sensations.

Next was the mammalian brain, where we store implicit memories, emotional experiences, feelings and desires. It is the reason we make most of our decisions in life, and is the part of our brains that reads the behaviors of other people. Nonverbal communication comes genetically preinstalled in this part of the brain. It's from where we get out "gut feelings" about others.

However, the neocortex and the mammalian brain do not consult with one another (because they don't "speak the same language") so the former is likely to take credit for such feelings by finding rationalizations for them AFTER they've already been formed, assigning the responsibility for their existence to factors that had nothing to do with their being put there in the first place.

Our very "young" neocortex is what makes us human. It is the intellectual and executive functioning part of the brain and processes logic, creativity, questions, art, music and ponders why we exist in the first place. So then, to bring to light that which people are hiding behind their masks, we need to teach the human part of our brains to learn to see and identify behaviors that are not only unconscious, but are programmed deeply within our brains—and to do this by tapping into our genetically inherited skills.
 
THE LAWS OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR

Chase claims there are four laws of human behavior (five actually, but he elects not to reveal the fifth one yet). Generally speaking, they all come down to his contention that everyone is hiding sadness, that Buddhism gets it right when it teaches that suffering is the universal condition of all creatures, and that everyone is hiding suffering from the world around them.

I don't know that I agree that ALL people are hiding sadness, but I DO believe that many (if not most) are. That's why I don't get all worked up over all the contributors to this forum with sour attitudes, who look for any and every opportunity to be negative, and often resort to personal attacks and insults as opposed to simply sticking to the substance of a given opinion. I figure they are just miserable people who are taking out their unhappiness on others. So, rather than get all wrapped up in arguing with them or unleashing the same kind of vitriol that spews from their "mouths/pens," I simply put them on ignore and move on. (I happen to really appreciate enjoying life, and therefore feel it is a waste of my time to engage such individuals.)

The four laws he cites are:
  1. Everyone is suffering and insecure
  2. Everyone is wearing a mask
  3. Everyone is pretending not to wear a mask
  4. Everyone is a product of childhood suffering and reward
Chase believes (promises) that if one practices seeing others in this way regularly, that person's entire life will change. He then states that these four laws of behavior suggest that one can see people through four different lenses, and serve not only as a technique to change one's perspective, but also as a profiling tool to read behavior.

The four lenses through which he says individuals view other people causes them to see their fellow humans as either…
  1. Broken
  2. Different
  3. Facts
  4. Reasons
For me, it is clearer to think of these labels as categories or classifications into which people can be sorted, rather than lenses through which people view others… as described below:

BROKEN

Those who view the people with whom they have a problem as broken regard them as screwed up or stupid. They want to "fix" situations in which they are confronted by getting "back on top" of the person with whom they have a conflict. Consequently, the actively participate in resistance against the other person. They typically will also make an identity statement in their mind in response to the situation, meaning that they will take the actions of the other individual personally and feel as though they have been chosen to be the target of this person's actions.

DIFFERENT

Those who view the people with whom they have problems as different will still have a strong emotional reaction to negative behaviors from other people, but even though they might take it personally, they are less likely to decide to take action to rectify the situation and "correct" the other person's behavior.

FACTS

Those who view folks with whom they have problems as facts see others in the same way most people see a natural disaster, and consequently, they are no more likely to take it personally than they would…say…finding themselves in the path of a blizzard, or getting bitten by a mosquito. There's no point in getting angry at the other person—that's just who they are. They see people as unchangeable and permanent facts, so they don't regard them in a negative way and assume there is nothing that will change them. These people are typically much happier in contrast to the previous two because of this.

REASONS

Those who view people with whom the come into conflict as reasons are at the level of a profiler—the highest level. They see the actions of others as a product of behaviors learned in childhood (because they are especially cognizant of the first and last of the four laws listed above). Without a negative thought about the other person, they know the behavior is something all humans are capable of. The negative behaviors are a product of pain, suffering and childhood experiences that shaped a person into who they are today.

Judgement disappears, and everyone is seen as equally screwed up, just in different ways. It's similar to seeing people as facts, except that people are viewed as behaving based on what life and/or childhood shaped them to be, as opposed to being based on nature.

SUMMARY

So then, the more you're able to view people as reasons, the more you'll be able to pull the curtain back and see people in a light that is accurate—especially if you use the Behavioral Table of Elements (BTE) © cited in the next chapter.
 
Chase spends about five or six pages explaining The Behavioral Table of Elements, but I'm a visual learner, so reading them was of almost no value to me at all. I tried downloading the table using the link in his book, but my browser wouldn't let me go there, so I had to do a Google search and was finally able to track down a pdf I could save on my laptop, which looks rather complicated to me.

So, I'm going to go back and re-read the chapter while looking at the pdf, which I trust will be of much greater value than just reading the chapter all by itself.
 
expiated said:
Chase spends about five or six pages explaining The Behavioral Table of Elements, but I'm a visual learner, so reading them was of almost no value to me at all. I tried downloading the table using the link in his book, but my browser wouldn't let me go there, so I had to do a Google search and was finally able to track down a pdf I could save on my laptop, which looks rather complicated to me. So, I'm going to go back and re-read the chapter while looking at the pdf, which I trust will be of much greater value than just reading the chapter all by itself.
More...
I just tried to download The Behavioral Table of Elements using the link in the book again, since I now have time to return to this topic, and THIS time I was able to do so. However, when I enlarged the chart I noticed there is a "Duplication Prohibited" statement in the upper-right-hand corner, so I've requested that the image in my previous post be deleted. Consequently, anyone wishing to refer to the document is likely to need to download it for themselves.
 
expiated said:
Chase says we can trace all of our failures back to three things…
OBSERVATION
An inability to recognize truth can be responsible for many issues in our lives; and a failure to pick up on behavioral clues or red flags (not only in people but also in situations) can lead to our downfall, or at the very least, result in our finding ourselves in some very unpleasant circumstances.
More...
%%
And animals, some snakes rattle before they strike+ some toxic snakes don't.
Sounds like a faulty law of his - ''everyone is a product of childhood suffering + reward.''[AS if growth stops @ childhood]
But then he flips it+ next line notes + ''can change''
Big difference also in ''not telling all you know '' + wearing a mask. Thanks for the read.
 
Okay, so... FINALLY getting back to this topic (it got put on the backburner when I realized I could not copy and paste the Behavioral Table of Elements here directly) I'm going to start by memorizing the meanings of the colors printed on the chart. The book says that yellow cells indicate higher discomfort behaviors (the chart itself says "high stress"). These would be:
  1. Wing Dilation (whatever that is)
  2. Ventilation
  3. Elbow Close
  4. Freeze
  5. Palms Down
  6. Foot Withdraw, and
  7. Jewelry (playing with?)
high_stress.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top