From a recent blog post:

People just don’t understand what love is, so they suffer. Most Westernized people think love is when you can’t live without someone or some object. Any doctor will tell you that actually sounds like a disease.

Atisha, a Buddhist monk in the 10th Century echoed what love really is:

“Love is the wish for others to be happy.”

Love is the wish for others to be happy? I disagree.

Merely wishing others to be happy, without taking tangible action to help them achieve happiness, is not love. It is mental masturbation. And delusional, if a person thinks that intending love makes up for their unloving actions.

I do agree with Erol that an addiction to someone is not love. But I have seen and heard far too many people who are convinced that they “love” someone because they feel loving, or intend good things for the other person, while actually treating that person badly, even abusively.

What you feel and intend matters to you. Other people only experience your actions, not your feelings or intentions.

When you want someone to be happy and you take action to help them achieve happiness, then you love them.

Luckily, you can take action whether or not you feel loving feelings, and whether or not you wish the other person happiness in that moment. That freedom gives you tremendous power to love, even in less-than-ideal circumstances. Loving action is a choice you can make, a habit you can build.

At the end of the evening, an attractive young woman said she is usually shy because she cares too much about what other people think. During some of the workshop exercises, she was able to not care what others thought of her, and found it liberating. She wanted the ability to not care what others think in the rest of her life.

I gently pointed out that while not caring what others think can be liberating, it can also be problematic. Would you really want ignore how your actions affect other people to the point that you hurt or offend them? Or maybe suffer serious consequences, such as getting fired? Probably not.

Do you focus on failure or success, or notice both?

“Caring too much” about what others think often means focusing on what doesn’t work, even if it’s 1% of interactions, and ignoring what does work, even when that’s 99% of what you do.

People in the U.S. are taught that they should be “independent” and “autonomous,” which often means not caring what others think. At the same time, we’re supposed to be nice, caring, kind people, treat others well, and conform to social norms. The result is often oscillation between over-concern with others think, and exaggerated lack of concern.

Rather than thinking in digital, black-and-white, all-or-nothing terms — either focusing obsessively on what others think (strong external reference ), or ignoring their responses (strong internal reference) — it’s often more useful to think in analog terms. How much does it benefit you and others to consider other people’s preferences and responses in situation X? What ratio of attention do you want to give what is working (so you can do more of that) vs. what isn’t working (so you can adjust your behavior, if appropriate)?

Some years ago I shifted my own focus from what others thought of me (or rather, what I imagined they thought of me) to noticing how well what I do is working. That greatly improved my comfort in social situations. My social skills got a lot better, too.

For improving your own and your clients’ responses to other people, I recommend Steve Andreas’s excellent book Transforming Your Self: Becoming Who You Want to Be. Written so non-NLPers can use it, the book is loaded with useful distinctions and exercises. You’ll find detailed instructions for adjusting perceptions in ways that will help you and your clients notice and correct behaviors that cause problems with others, while maintaining a strong and appropriate sense of self.

Tabitha gets trauma flashbacks. She re-experiences events so vividly that they re-traumatize her. Afterward fear, anxiety, depression, and crying jags can debilitate her for days, and affect her mood for weeks.

Emotionally loaded recall is especially common in people with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), a learned trauma response. It’s also common among people with Asperger syndrome. Like Gary, Aspies are prone to obsess over negative emotions and make them worse.

Of course, re-experiencing remembered emotions can be an asset when you recall pleasant memories. But with negative experiences — especially traumas — it’s usually preferable to get the useful life lessons from less-than-positive memories, without getting upset or re-traumatized.

How to help clients who do traumatic recall

Doing NLP processes to remove emotional charge from problem memories is particularly useful when a client has a few traumatic or upsetting memories. What if your client has many problem memories, like Tabitha? What if your client’s recall strategy makes any negative memory into a potential problem, like Gary?

You can dramatically help clients with problem recall strategies by teaching them to:

1. Associate into pleasant memories. (Exceptions: addictions, compulsions, and obsessions.)
2. Disassociate from unpleasant memories.
3. Use partial disassociation to get additional information from unpleasant memories. For instance, the client might associate only into physical sensations (external auditory and visual; tactile and body position K), while remaining disassociated from their past emotional state and thoughts.

Installing an improved recall strategy

1. Determine whether the client knows how to associate and disassociate. Some people associate so automatically and consistently that disassociation is a new experience for them! Teach these clients to disassociate using 3 neutral memories.

A client who is new to disassociation or has trouble disassociating may benefit from Connirae Andreas’s process for Aligning Perceptual Positions before proceeding further.

2. Model how the client recalls neutral, mildly pleasant, and mildly unpleasant memories. Which are associated, which disassociated?

3. Have your client practice associating into 3 or more pleasant memories. Include at least one mildly pleasant memory, so they learn to enjoy recalling small pleasures, and one or more intensely pleasant memories. (If your client consistently associates into pleasant memories already, you can skip this step.)

4. Have your client practice disassociated recall of 3 or more unpleasant memories. Once they can do that,

5. Have your client practice disassociated recall of 3 more intense unpleasant memories. Gradually increase intensity. If your client encounters a memory they can’t disassociate from, use a reverse-time trauma resolution process to remove the emotional charge, then try again.

6. Teach your client partial disassociation. At times a client might need additional information about an unpleasant experience — information that can only be accessed via association. Fortunately, association is analog rather than digital: you can associate into some aspects of a memory (such as tactile sensations, body positions, and smells), while staying disassociated from the most troubling parts of the experience (remembered thoughts and feelings).

I have clients learn partial disassociation using neutral memories. It’s often useful to have the client make a movie screen that shows their emotions and thoughts, or a soundtrack with a neutral observer voice that describes them, so that client knows what is there without associating into that part of the memory.

7. Have your client practice instant disassociation if they accidently associate into the problematic aspects of a memory. I also have them disassociate as soon as they have the information they want. The goal is to create a strategy where the client does the minimum amount of association to retrieve the information they want, then disassociates. This ensures that they won’t get stuck in — or triggered by — a problem memory.

I used to have thousands of traumatic and intensely negative memories. Like Gary and Tabitha, I had an associated recall strategy that often left me upset for hours or days. Doing NLP trauma resolution processes helped some, but I was still left with countless other memories that could trigger emotional upsets. Once I learned to do disassociated recall of negative memories, my life became a lot more pleasant.

In recent years, cognitive scientists have shown that a few simple techniques can reliably improve what matters most: how much a student learns from studying.

The findings can help anyone, from a fourth grader doing long division to a retiree taking on a new language. But they directly contradict much of the common wisdom about good study habits, and they have not caught on.

For instance, instead of sticking to one study location, simply alternating the room where a person studies improves retention. So does studying distinct but related skills or concepts in one sitting, rather than focusing intensely on a single thing.

Read the article on the NY Times website.

I find it interesting that a lot of the findings — such as varying study location, and varying what you study — parallel findings from animal training, as reported in Karen Pryor’s book Don’t Shoot the Dog!: The New Art of Teaching and Training.

Have you read the book Zimbaro mentions, The Geography of Time? (I haven’t.) If so, what do you think of it?

My busy dating life gives me plenty of opportunities to learn more about relationships. Which brings me to today’s topic, personal (relationship) chemistry.

What is personal chemistry?

My dictionary defines personal chemistry as the emotional and psychological way two people relate to each other, especially when experienced as a powerful mutual attraction. Example: “Their intense sexual chemistry almost tempted them into an affair.” When you’re not attracted to someone, that’s “no chemistry,” and when you dislike them on sight, that’s “bad chemistry.”

Take a moment now to vividly recall 3 experiences:

1. A time you met someone with whom you had great chemistry.
2. An interaction where you expected good chemistry, perhaps because the other person was smart or physically attractive, but instead you felt no chemistry.
3. A time when you had bad chemistry with someone. You immediately felt uncomfortable or disliked them — perhaps before either of you spoke!

Now compare: How easy was it to get and stay in rapport with each person?

Personal chemistry = rapport

In “good chemistry,” people have good rapport. Because their communication styles match or complement each other, and they make similar assumptions, it’s easy to create rapport, and they rarely bump each other out of rapport.

In “no chemistry,” people have a much harder time establishing rapport. Because of differing communication styles, habits, and assumptions, these people tend to disrupt what rapport they have.

In “bad chemistry,” people may be drastically out of rapport. Or they might be deep in negative rapport, where each person’s behavior triggers conflicting responses in the other.

Types of relationship chemistry

As you know from your NLP training, there are many ways to get in rapport with people. Personally, I like to think of chemistry in terms of:

• Sexual chemistry — physical attraction and rapport, which can occur with or without emotional rapport. Sexual chemistry alone can produce attraction to someone you don’t even like. (I disliked the first boy I had a crush on. What a weird, creepy feeling!)
• Romantic chemistry — a special type of emotional rapport that generates feelings of romantic love. When romantic and sexual chemistry occur together, people often refer to it as couple chemistry, dating chemistry, or marriage chemistry. Romantic love can also occur in friendships, without sexual chemistry or physical desire.
• Emotional chemistry — the kind of emotional rapport you have with people you immediately like and want to be friends with.
• Activity chemistry — you want to do particular activities with this person, even if you don’t have much else in common. This is your favorite hiking partner or gaming buddy.
• Team performance chemistry — great sports teams and music groups have physical rapport that helps the players play synergistically. In business, great teams have functional rapport that helps them perform at their best.
• Creative chemistry — you work well creating together. Every great jazz ensemble has this. So do synergistic inventors, engineers, programmers, artists, and improv theater groups.
• Intellectual chemistry — something I share with my NLP development buddies. When I work with equally talented people with whom I don’t have good intellectual rapport, we don’t accomplish nearly as much.
• Empowerment chemistry — you could also call this spiritual chemistry, though I dislike the term because it implies a belief in spirits that not everyone shares. When you interact with someone on this level, the two of you empower each other and help each other develop as human beings.

What kinds of chemistry work for you?

As you think back to your best, worst, and ho-hum relationships, notice what patterns of chemistry (or lack of it) work best for you:

• What kinds of chemistry work well in your romantic relationships? Friendships? Work relationships?
• Where is it important to not have certain kinds of chemistry? Since my father did intellectual work, he enjoyed not having deep intellectual rapport with my mother. It gave him a chance to rest his mind and reconnect emotionally.

Even sexual chemistry is largely a learned skill. If you’d like more chemistry in your life and relationships (or you’d like to disrupt some chemistry that causes you problems), cultivate and apply your NLP rapport skills.

Joy

Buy on Amazon

Gary Chapman’s book The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts explores common convincer strategies for love. Chapman calls them love languages.

When someone gets plenty of convincing evidence they are loved — evidence that fits their convincer criteria — they feel loved and appreciated. In Chapman’s words, their “emotional gas tank” gets filled.

When people don’t get convincing evidence of love — or worse, when they get convincing evidence that they are not loved — their emotional gas tank gets depleted and they feel unloved, unappreciated… and often hurt, hostile, resentful, etc. This can happen even when they are receiving lots of love — because it’s in a form they don’t recognize as love.

Most people respond to several love languages, yet have one they prefer most. That is the love language that fills their emotional gas tank the fastest. It’s also the love language whose opposite emotionally depletes them the most.

The 5 Love Languages

1. Physical Touch such as a hug, a hand on the shoulder, cuddling, sex. For people who use Touch as their primary love language, not being touched can feel like punishment, and getting pushed, slapped, hit, or sexually abused can be especially traumatic.
2. Words of Affirmation such as “I love you,” “It means a lot to me when you tell me you love me,” or “You are a wonderful friend.” For people who use this convincer, hearing harsh words and criticism quickly drain their emotional gas tank.
3. Quality Time means spending time together, often doing something one or both people value. If your partner loves hockey and you hate it, and they use the Quality Time love language, going to a game with them because they value it could mean a lot to them. Not spending time together depletes people who use this love language.
4. Acts of Service can be done with the loved one, or apart from them — the easiest way to distinguish this convincer from Quality Time. Harmful actions emotionally drain people who prefer this love language.
5. Gifts: people with this love language make a big deal out of even small gifts. They talk about them, show them off, display them. Not giving gifts — especially on occasions where they might expect them — drains these people.

How the 5 languages of love can make or break relationships

When couples court each other, Chapman says, they typically use a lot of the love languages, so both people’s needs get met.

However, once a relationship gets established, people tend to get lazier and express love primarily in their own love language. That works find if both people use the same convincer… but most couples don’t.

The result is a relationship where both people sincerely express their love for the other in the ways that would most satisfy themselves… yet each person ends up feeling unloved.

Classic example: His primary love language is Acts of Service, so he works hard to support the family, keeps the house and car in good repair, mows the lawn, and takes out the garbage. His wife thinks he doesn’t love her because he never brings her flowers (Gifts) or tells her he loves her (Words of Affirmation). He feels unloved because her verbal praise and gifts are meaningless to him; he wants her to do things for him the way he does things for her.

My coaching trainers say that a lot of the relationship problems they see in the couples they coach stem from people not feeling seen, heard, and appreciated by their partner. Teaching these couples to use the five languages of love often improves a bunch of relationship problems fast.

I find the love languages meta-program a very useful distinction. I use it with friends, dating, and relationships. This winter I also used it to more quickly recharge my emotional batteries after surgery, and reduce my emotional depletion during a rough relationship breakup.

I find that stacking activities so they express multiple love languages makes for a stronger love experience. For instance, I could just touch someone — but if I give them a massage (Physical Touch) as an Act of Service, I also say some heartfelt Words of Affirmation, and we make the whole situation Quality Time, it’s a better experience for both of us.

As an NLP modeler, I have noticed some additional fine distinctions in the love convincers. For instance, eye contact is important to some people, unimportant to others. Nevertheless, I think Chapman has done a good job of covering the basics. Love Languages are a great distinction we NLPers can put to good use.

Lovingly,

Joy

###

Additional resource: The Five Love Languages of Children.

Take disassociation, for example. In your NLP training you might have learned that disassociated = not associated.

Wrong.

When my research buddy Jan “yon” Saeger and I started investigating disassociation, Jan quickly realized that, strictly speaking, disassociation doesn’t exist.

That’s because…

When you disassociate out of one point of view… you do it by associating into another point of view!

For instance, think of a pleasant memory. When you associate into a memory, you experience it from within, reliving at least part of it.

When you disassociate from that same memory, notice that you now observe it from somewhere. You have a perspective, a point of view. The memory is in some spatial relationship to where “you” now are. In your new location, you hear and see from where “you” are. And when you feel strong emotions while observing a memory from outside, that requires kinesthetics.

You see, your brain doesn’t have any way to make a coherent representation from no point of view. To make a visual image, it has to represent the image as being somewhere and viewed from somewhere. When constructing or remembering a sound, that sound has a location… and so do the ears hearing it. A feeling requires something to feel with, which again has location. Thus…

The difference between associated and disassociated is which parts of your experience you associate into

When you “associate” into a memory, you disassociate from your present-time body and awareness, and from Observer position.

When you observe a memory from a “disassociated” point of view, you associate into Observer position, and out of your real-time sensory experience.

When you associate into real-time sensory experience, you disassociate from your memories and your compelling internal representations.

You can also associate and disassociate from various sensory aspects of your experience. As I write this, I’m strongly associated into my constructed visual, auditory, and proprioceptive representations, and also into my emotions about the article. I’m also disassociated from my visual and auditory awareness of the room around me, and from real-time sensory body awareness outside my typing hands. This allowed me to forget my aching knee until I wrote this paragraph.

People have habitual patterns of sensory association and disassociation. While working with athletes, my research buddy Michael Harris discovered that top gymnasts stay associated into kinesthetics that track body position, movement, and balance. They stay disassociated from their emotions so they don’t get upset by yelling coaches or making mistakes. You might know worriers who automatically associate into their emotions and constructed representations of what could go wrong — while disassociating from soothing representations and sensory experiences that would reassure or calm them.

Often a problem recurs because someone habitually disassociates from key information (such as the gut feeling warning them not do something), or associates into problematic representations (such as those worriers). A little tweaking of association and disassociation can sometimes make a big difference.

Use association cues to disassociate your clients

Since disassociation works by associating you into something else… you can use association techniques to disassociate people. Simply make sure the association cues you provide associate them into a different point of view or sensory experience — one you choose. In other words, associate the client into a “disassociated” point of view.

One of the most effective ways to do this is to specify submodalities in multiple representation systems — including several types of kinesthetics, such as tactile feelings, balance, and emotions. This forces people to build specific, associated representations — and that gets them associated right where you want them.

Joy