Well, it made me laugh!

Not only did the carousel links not work for me, but trying to click one of the left-hand navigation items instead dragged the graphic. Great Scot!

I don't think categorizing problems as "superficial" vs. "deep" is particularly useful, as those distinctions don't tell us anything useful about the underlying structure.

I have noticed that standard NLP techniques tend to be effective when a problem develops in response to a small number of experiences. Whereas if the problem arises from hundreds or thousands of related experiences, as is often the case with for instance a response to an ongoingly abusive or crazy home environment, changing it may require a complex, multi-pronged approach. I suspect that the structure in the first case is rather simple, whereas the second case results in multiple redundant self-reinforcing structures. But I haven't formally tested this.
My recent post Lessons learned from Tom Hoobyar

My favorite technique for dealing with inner critics is to figure out what they want, dialog with them a bit to hepl them get pointed in a constructive direction, then send them to coaching school and turn them into coaches!

Critics are VERY motivated to help the person avoid bad outcomes or achieve good ones -- that's why they're critics! They're a problem because they don't know how to get their outcomes in constructive ways.

I usually find it helpful to ask an inner critic how well what it's been doing has worked, on a scale of 0 to 100%. Generally if it's causing or having enough problems to come up in a session, the number is low or 0. Once it realized how ineffective its behavior has been, the critic is usually happy to get some coaching training. I have the client "send it off to coaching school," then suggest that it will learn skills such as:

+ notifying the person of potential problems BEFORE they happen, and suggesting corrective action (instead of criticizing the person after it's too late to avoid the problem);

+ noticing what the person does that DOES work, and encouraging the person to notice and do more of that;

+ helping the person feel good when they do good things;

+ when something doesn't work, helping the person figure out what to do next time to prevent, avoid, or minimize the problem;

+ talking kindly and lovingly to the person;

+ talking to them with the sexiest and/or most loving voice in the whole world -- the kind of voice they LIKE to listen to, and will pay attention to...

...and so on.

As a person who at one time had literally THOUSANDS of negative internal voices myself, it is amazing to me to live with a mind that is so peaceful, happy, and quiet. Instead of the inner critics that made my life hellish, I now have inner coaches that comfort, teach, motivate, and inspire me. They still do the useful functions inner critics do, and they do them in kind, loving, constructive ways. Most of the time now, they don't need to say anything. :)
My recent post Lessons learned from Tom Hoobyar

Great post, Duff! I've noticed this phenomenon myself, especially in this form:

I want to achieve tangible goal X... but to "take action" on it, I do something symbolic that does nothing to move me tangibly closer to my goal.

For instance, if I decide to get in shape, joining the gym is a symbolic activity. Only actually doing exercise will help me achieve my goal. That doesn't require gym membership; I could walk to the store, go up and down stairs, ride my bike, swim, use canned goods for free weights... Having a gym membership might or might not help me actually exercise. For many people, gym membership is a symbolic substitute for doing the tangible exercise that would help them toward their fitness goals.

Often the best way out of this bind is to quit doing the symbolic substitute. Now whenever you think about task, project, or goal X, instead of telling yourself "I'm doing it!", you notice that you're not doing it, and that tends to inspire action. Give away the paints, model railroad track, or engine rebuild parts you've been hoarding for years, and you're actually more likely to paint, build a model layout, or tweak that engine. Go figure.

My recent post Powerful persuasion technique used by successful companies- individuals

Typinator is another bit lever for the Mac. It is less buggy than TypeIt4Me, better supported, and has more features.

(I've used bit levers on Macs since around 1990.)

Also, boost productivity by tweaking your computer's interface so it works the way you think. Examples:

• Set up files and folders you use most so you can access them quickly and easily.


• If you need to see files to notice them, and you're running out of space on your desktop, use a utility like DragThing to add pull-out drawers around your screen.


• If you like pull-down menus, a program like Classic Menu helps you find files and folders you want.


• If you find listening easier than reading, use a text-to-speech program to select text in emails and on web pages, then read it aloud to you. (The Mac has a built-in text-to-speech utility that I use for this.)

Great article, Duff! You captured a huge piece of what's wrong with so much of the personal development field.

Wishful thinking rules! If we just believe we can control our lives, we can!

Even though it's impossible. Er...

...continues from above:

Informality can waste time
One of the down sides to informal videos, and a pet peeve of mine, is the tendency of presenters to waste the viewer's time. Video bloggers, I do not need or want to see you set up the camera. I don't care about your technical difficulties. If you shoot some material that isn't relevant, do a favor to every single person who will watch your video, and edit it out! The same goes for poorly organized and presented material. If you can't say it clearly and concisely, do a retake!

Duff's informal video does a nice job of presenting the context (Duff making breakfast, and the reason he shot the video during that time) without burdening the viewer with unnecessary fluff.

Results of some relevant experiments I did
Throughout 2009 I experimented with presenting myself in various ways at parties, social events, workshops, and on dates. I dressed more or less formally, sexily, sensually; I did or didn't wear/carry clothes and props that nonverbally signaled my interests; I interacted with people in various ways.

Rather than testing formal vs. informal behavior, I played with how and when I approached people. For instance, introducing myself to other students before a workshop began vs. approaching people during and afterward. Introducing myself to everyone, systematically, vs. approaching people individually when they said or did something interesting. Saying hi to everyone I knew, vs. saying hi only if we crossed paths during the event. Introducing myself only, vs. also introducing the person I had just spoken to.

Unsurprisingly, I discovered that I get more of the responses I want when I dress and act in ways that are congruent with the outcomes I want. For instance, if I want to meet potential dates at a party or workshop:

1. I wear something socially appropriate, so I fit in the context and people feel comfortable with me.


2. I wear something that looks both pretty/sexy and touchable, so people will find me visually attractive and also want to touch me.


3. I am friendly and smile a lot, which makes me more approachable.


4. I introduce myself to everyone I can, as early as I can. Once people talk with me, even briefly, they are much likelier to approach me later, and to introduce me to others.


5. I do fun things with people that make them and me smile. I have fun, they have fun, they enjoy being around me and tend to come back. And as a side benefit, other people see me surrounded by smiling people and figure I might be worth approaching.

By behaving this way, I meet and gain rapport with many more people, make far more friends, and find probably 20 times more potential dates. Or they find me, LOL!

I don't regard any course of behavior as more or less "authentic." Virtually all human behaviors are arbitrary and constructed! However, some behaviors work better to get the outcomes I want, which aligns better with my values and goals. When I behave in ways that generate the results I want, I feel grounded, congruent, and alive. I have fun. And people respond well to me, as if I've got some kind of social magic. As if I'm, well... authentic. :-)

...continued from above:

Formal video
Compared with his informal video, here Duff moves less, gestures less, keeps his body in almost the same position, and speaks with much less inflection. He omits most of the rapport-building social cues he used in his informal video. The poor lighting of his face obscures his expression and makes his eyes almost impossible to see. Visually, there is low contrast between Duff's green shirt and the tan chair behind him, making his torso and arms difficult to distinguish from the background, especially since he doesn't move much. The viewer's mirror neurons have a lot less to work with. In terms of sensory data -- pictures, sounds, and feelings -- the formal video is much less interesting that the informal video. Neither seeing-, hearing-, nor feeling-primary people will find much to respond to.

Duff also provides fewer social rapport cues. The viewer can't really see whether he makes eye contact, but he rarely smiles, he doesn't move his body around in relation to the viewer's viewpoint, and he makes few social gestures toward the viewer. Verbally, he provides much less context for his presentation.

For most of us, formality is a signal to not engage passionately and connect with deep rapport. We've all had lots of exposure to "talking heads" on video, and Duff presents himself as one.

These factors all work against establishing emotional rapport with the viewer, or creating a strong emotional response in them that will make the video's informational content seem interesting, important, or worth remembering.

Framing and context
In Duff's informal video, rapport and social cues create a frame for the content that makes it seem relevant and interesting. Duff's formal video lacks these rapport and social cues. It is pretty much "about" its informational content. A viewer who has a burning interest in the information might find Duff's formal video riveting. For most people, the content alone won't be enough to create the same level of interest.

On the other hand, some people will interpret the lack of social cues in the formal video as meaning that Duff has high authority. Some of those folks might pay more attention to the content because of that.

It would be interesting to do another A/B test. In the informal video, Duff could dress and act casually, but speak in a monotone, mostly avoid eye contact, and not move much. (I have seen numerous bad YouTube videos like that.) In the formal video he could dress and act more formally, but speak and gesture animatedly, smile, and made lots of eye contact. I suspect people would find the latter more "authentic."

There's also the matter of context. Duff's making-breakfast video would probably go over poorly at a stuffy professional conference, because it mismatches people's expectations for that context. But for someone surfing the Web in their spare time (informal context), his breakfast video matches their expectations.

Bottom line: If you want to get your point across, engage your audience!

continues below...

Duff's experiment interests me because of what it suggests about why people might perceive a particular presentation as more or less "authentic." FWIW, here's my analysis. YMMV.

Informal video
Duff is more animated, gestures more, moves his body more, and varies his voice tone more than in the formal video. As he moves around, the lighting shifts on his face and glasses. These sensory cues make the video more interesting to watch and listen to. They provide more input for mirror neurons to create emotional responses in the viewer. Visually oriented people will see lots to watch; auditorily oriented people will hear engaging voice tonality; and feeling-oriented people will respond emotionally.

Duff also gives social cues that help engage the viewer and establish rapport. He makes eye contact, smiles, moves his body in relation to the viewer's viewpoint, and makes lots of social gestures toward the viewer. Verbally, he sets more of a background context: he just finished doing a Core Transformation process with a client, then he explains what Core Transformation is and does. He asks himself questions such as "Why is this important?", then answers them. These questions, along with voice tone shifts and other social cues, help the viewer calibrate on which parts of Duff's presentation are most important.

Most people have our strongest emotional responses to friends and family members we relate to informally. Someone on a video giving social cues that say "engage with me" is more likely to trigger our automatic engagement response.

All these factors help Duff establish rapport with the viewer, increasing their emotional response. More emotional response means the information part of Duff's presentation will seem more interesting and engaging to most people. They'll find the video easier to watch, with less effort, and remember the content more easily because they have stronger feelings while learning it.

When Colin Wheildon researched the effects typography has on comprehension, he discovered that the more easily people could read an article (it was the same article, typeset different ways) the more likely they were to read it. I presume the same is true of video.

Duff, I applaud you for emphasizing the psychological pressure to conform that Ray's seminar participants were under.

I just discovered this 4-minute video about the Asch Conformity Experiment. Asch demonstrated how peer pressure can distort people's perceptions (so they genuinely don't realize that something is wrong), or get them to behave like other group members even when they do realize something is wrong.

I find these results even scarier than the Milgram experiment, in that no one told or forced these subjects to conform; they just did it.

Ray's seminar participants were under intense pressure to obey and conform -- pressure from the leader, their own expectations, and behavior by other group members. Everyone may have thought "I want out of here!", but conformity prevailed. What a tragedy.