The following is an idea I have been exploring relating to acceptance. . I would appreciate feedback from anyone who shares my passion for NLP and maybe from some who don't.
Have you wistfully thought how good it would be to able to empower yourself and others with just one word?
Well, while reviewing Robert's Dilts famous sentence "I can't do that here", I felt myself flinch. I do not like saying "I can't do that here". It presupposes a difficulty exists and that's not necessarily true. Each word in the sentence addresses a different logical level. Most NLP readers are familiar with
- I = identity,
can't = belief,
do = capability,
- that = action,
- here = context.
Identity is considered to be a higher level than belief. Dilts maintains that problems are best viewed at as lower level a possible and solutions found at higher levels. That seems eminently sensible. So what if the problem is an identity problem and when I can't do something I have a sneaky feeling that maybe this reflects somewhat on my identity. At least I had, till a very liberating thought occurred to me. "I don't have to be able to do that here." This thought has been so liberating on occasions in my life that I thought it would be kind of nice to have that feeling more often.
Fortunately, Dilts logical levels have a level higher than identity. This is the level at which my identity is only an element. This can be arrived at by asking the question "What am I part of? "To use the sentence "I can't do that here" another word is required before the I. As my conscious mind drifted off, a word appeared and the word was OK. That's it. Not only was the word OK. OK is the word. To make sure I tested the two sentences "I can't do that here" and "OK, I can't do that here" on everybody I could find. Test it on someone now. See if you get the same response as I did. Each and everyone said they felt more resourceful with the OK sentence. Some said they felt acceptance and that allowed them to think it through clearly. Some felt utterly liberated by the thought that they could find someone else to do it instead. I tested it on matchers and mismatchers and it worked. That was significant for me because it suggested that personal metaprograms acted at a lower level than the OK level.
Would this work in the real world operating in real time. I hate therapy. It's a sort of admission that I'm not living life right the first time. So it was real important for me to test it to the max in the market place with non-NLP people.
At the time I was in Canterbury, far away from home. I wanted to buy a nice bottle of wine. Now as it happens, I come from Hawkes Bay, an area that grows superb Cabinet Sauvingon and have a reasonable idea of each vintner's ability. Here they grew excellent Pinot Noir, a variety hardly ever grown back home. "OK, so I can't choose a good wine here." Who can? This is working just fine. So I ask the assistant which Canterbury Pinot Noir she enjoys most. She does not actually drink wine. Almost instantly the owner materialises. As he comments on the selection there are two wines that he savours and drops momentarily into a happy trance. Yes, one is most suitable for a meal and the other more expensive one is just the thing for a special occasion. And that's how it proved to be.
Some may be simply excited with this and go off and use it. Some may ask some what-if type questions like "Won't this make you less independent or less capable or something". The strange thing is it has so far always increased my ability to do the thing myself. When I painted my house I tried so many wall colours my friends asked me if I was into swatches. Clearly, I could not choose a colour scheme that achieved the effect I desired. I asked several interior decorators before finding one who knew her stuff. For her, my problem was a piece of cake. Better than that, she found it fun as I was looking for bold solutions that had also to integrate perfectly. Now this has more than a familiar ring about it.
Modelling.
Step one: Find someone for whom this is no problem at all.
Step two: Elicit their beliefs.
Step three: Engage their full physiology in a demonstration. Well, when a later occasion arose to help a friend choose colours for a house I was able to select possibilities that worked and leave the final choice to her. What I am saying is that the OK level allows me to think of delegation and modelling as everyday choices.
Is this all just a repeat of "I'm OK, You're OK".
No, it's not.
This is "OK, I am. OK, You are."
Compare your physiology when you say both. Maybe you'd even like to answer the following questions.
Do either of them generate more self acceptance?
Does either phrase generate acceptance of others?
Does either imply a willingness to learn?
Does either of them have a pleading tone?
I ask these as questions because I know what is true for me.
There are some questions I can't answer for you like,
"Is it OK to put something ahead of yourself in life? "