Engineering for the Mind

I used to be a Physicist - I'm sorry about that. I'm apologising for all the conversations that stopped in the past...

 

Actually I used to be an Applied Physicist and what I actually did was more like 'Engineering' and there are some important differences. My take on it is that 'pure' scientists seek to answer the big questions about the environment that surrounds us and the laws of nature that drive it -  which very often lead to even bigger questions. The Applied Physicist or Engineer seeks to solve problems, often from first principles of how things work but the ultimate goal is to solve a specific problem.

 

Having worked in very pragmatic industries in the past I'm very familiar with the 'Engineering' approach. You have a problem, you work out what the variables and constraints are and you try out solutions until the initial problem appears to be solved. What you have actually done is perhaps unknown but you now have a new formula that works and you stick with it. I have worked with some extremely bright people who had pretty good intuitions about how they solve problems and what was actually going on. However they don't know for certain and that wasn't important. They'll let some graduate student or professor work it out in a few years time - right now they had another problem to tackle and that was the priority.

 

In fact it can be said that Engineering leads the sciences. Stuff is invented and experimented with to solve a specific problem. The actually understanding of the pure science behind a solution may lag years behind the scientific validation. Did Edison understand exactly what he had found when after thousands of experiments he stumbled across a practical filament for a light bulb? He had some pretty good ideas but at the moment of discovery he was probably more relieved that he had found something that was ‘good enough’.

 

Why do I mention this? Because the world of NLP is really 'Engineering of the Mind'. NLP is a very pragmatic approach and works with 'what works' rather than obsesses about the actual science of the mind. As the science of the mind evolves such discoveries as ‘Mirror Neurons’ and the complexities of how different parts of the brain function really just validate much of what NLP and similar approaches have been doing for years. It’s exciting to know, for me anyway, that as NLP evolves it can be the Engineering that leads the Science of the Mind.

Authentic Happiness

I was in discussion with a 'Lady of the Cloth' the other day. A delightfully informed and educated one at that and it was a lively and sadly short conversation. She asked what I regarded as the secret to happiness. It reminded me of a great book that I highly recommend called The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathon Haidt. Mr Haidt's conclusion after reviewing the field of Positive Psychology and ancient wisdom on Happiness is that authentic happiness boils down to:

 

Connection + Contribution

 

Meaningful connection to fellow human beings that add value and Contribution to something greater than themselves. I think this is a really sound conclusion and stands pretty firm against questions from all sorts of perspectives.

 

Try it out. Does it work for you?

 

Personally I work in a field that accentuates great human connection and my work directly contributes to improving peoples lives. I’m authentically happy about that…

Anti-Guru Therapeutic Myth

I particularly enjoyed Oliver Burkeman's column 'This column will change your life' in the Guardian in March 2008. You can read the full article here.

Oliver draws attention to the incongruency that some people perceive in self-help guru's not apparently following their own advice. One example being Scott Peck; "whose The Road Less Travelled counsels self-discipline and deferred gratification, was serially unfaithful to his wife, who then divorced him?"

I propose that the problem is the perception that it is possible to lead a 'perfect' life. How boring would that be to be honest? I'm personally far more convinced and moved by people who use their own vunerabilities as examples of 'acceptance' and lessons to learn from. Milton Erickson being a fine example of overcoming personal frailities to become an inspirational teacher and outstanding therapist. The wheelchair-bound Erickson who spend hours a day using self hypnosis to manage pain so that he could teach and see clients once said, "I like to find out what I can do, and enjoy doing it".

What a better way to live a life. Finding out what you can do and enjoy doing it rather than modelling yourself on others who you perceive as better than you in some way. Nobody is perfect and we all have wisdom to share. It's the reason that in the work I do I focus far more on creating a safe place to explore rather than being perceived as a clever trainer, coach or teacher.

I've tried it the other way round. No one actually learns when your the smartarse at the front of the room even though it may feel good at the time. It's far more gratifying to see people learn for themselves and make permeanent changes that stick rather than rely on you for their feel-good top-up.

I'll leave Oliver Burkeman to close this entry:

...but it needn't mean all advice is worthless. The problem, surely, isn't with self-help, but with attaching ourselves to gurus and believing all they say: the opposite of self-help. The best advice throws you back on yourself, leaving you in no doubt that the decision to pursue any course of action is always only your own, and the best advisers shun the role of guru. Here's psychotherapist Sheldon Kopp: "It is as if I stand in the doorway of my office, waiting. The patient enters and takes a lunge at me, a desperate attempt to pull me into the fantasy of taking care of him. I step aside. The patient falls to the floor, disappointed and bewildered. Now he has a chance to get up and try something new... He may transform... his bid for safety into a reaching out for adventure."

Expertise Disease

There's a disease in training. It's widespread and can have some pretty unpleasant symptoms. It can wear trainers out, exhaust delegates and block real learning...

It's the belief that the trainer is the 'Expert'. That they know more than the delegates and are there to download their expertise to the 'less able'.

There is something fundamentally wrong with this. If knowledge is what you're after then read a book. You can achieve a great deal more 'knowledge acquisition' in a shorter period of time than the laborious process of listening to someone else.

So what is the role of an effective trainer? To create a space where learning can happen would be my answer. Where experience can be tested and reflected on in a safe space designed for the experiential learning taking place.

When you go to a training do you:

• Expect to learn from the trainer?
• Blame the trainer if you don't learn anything?
• Look for a good set of notes so you can file them neatly when you get back to work and only refer to them when people asked you what you did on the course?
• Only change your way of doing things if others do first?

Or:

• Do you decide what you want to learn before you go?
• Own your own learning and 'how' you will learn during the course?
• Help others to learn by engaging in the process and let learning emerge?
• Help the trainer and other learners create a safe space for exploration and reflection?

So why does this disease exist? Because that's how we were taught at school and university. We learnt what we were told and regurgitated when requested.

But think back. When did you really learn? Perhaps when you were pushed to do something different and stretch yourself or because you were inspired to change by the example of others through real experience?

Stay curious...

Competency vs. Amiability

This goes back a bit to an article about management theory and the Cambridge and Oxford boat race that I first saw in The Economist in Mar 2007.

In summary Mark de Rond, a Cambridge management academic at the Judge Business School, noted that for rowers to make it on to a boat the first have to prove their individual strength against their clubmates. But for a boat to win rowers must synchronise their efforts with people they were competing against.

Rowers will sometimes get in to a 'rhythm fight' where each is trying to impose their rhythm on the boat - perhaps sometimes unconsciously. There are various fixes to this from an observant coach telling individuals to slow down or speed up to self-coaching where individuals awareness is raised and they self-correct.

Rowing coaches have noticed that to achieve the best 8 from say a selection of 30 or so can cause some interesting choices and instructions. For example stronger rowers may be asked to row more 'anonymously' and likeable and flamboyant weaker rowers can help to speed up the whole team.

The article also quotes a Harvard Business Review piece that reports that workmates prize amiability over ability preferring the 'loveable fool' to the 'competent jerk'.

Interesting stuff and a real example of the importance of Emotional Intelligence combined with competency for truly high performance. Doesn't matter how good you are if you don't 'fit in' and it's at the expense of others...

The problem with training

Most training doesn't work.

I don't have figures for this but it's my belief that the vast majority of training simply doesn't deliver actual behavioral change. Why is that?

Well I think its because training naturally focuses on skills development to fill a perceived behavioural gap. That sounds pretty sensible. But the reality is that much training fails to add value because it doesn't operate at the level of Beliefs and Values, i.e., what the person believes about themselves and what value they place on the skills and behaviours being taught.

Take for example Presentation skills training. You may learn many tricks and much 'best practice'. However if you still don't believe that you have as much right as anyone to be a good presenter or value presenting as a skill that takes practice and is worth rehearsing and learning then you are left with a bag of tools that you are still unable to use confidently. In fact you may end up in a worse position - knowing you know what to do but still lacking the self believe to do it. Ouch!

What's the answer? Choose experiential training, such as Judy's 'Voice of Influence' course that works at the level of values and beliefs as well as building skills that are a natural extension of what people already do. Does it work? Absolutely. I've seen people who have previously fainted at the thought of doing a presentation stand up and do a 5-minute improvised presentation, confidently and with real presence after 2 days with Judy. It appears astonishing but that's really what good training should be about - real practice and building belief in your own ability.

Keeping it real

I've been sending out a few emails over the last few days to remind people of our NLP Core Skills program. As ever the more real and personable I made the emails the better response I got and actually they were more of a pleasure to write. These moments are always a reminder to me that people seek real human connection in whatever the do.

Unfortunately work conspires to have us 'acting' in roles where we feel we have to be someone we are not. What a shame. But it often feels safer that way. We can hide behind the role and blame our circumstances for our behaviour. However the reality is the more human and vunerable we are the more we are 'seen' by others and the easier it is to connect at a level we can all value. If there is anything we try and achieve in all our training work at ABL that would be a primary aim. Real human connection.

What real human connections did you make today and how could you have made them even more real?