For some people the title of this post may be an open door. Of course they’re not the same, you might think. But I bet the majority of people do mistake these for one another. A motivated person is someone with a drive to make things happen and a disciplined person is the one who makes it happen, right? Eric Hamm and Leo Babauta beg to differ. Motivation is key for them. Discipline is when motivation is empowered through enjoying what you do and by positive public pressure.

Creating together is better!

My old-time blogging friend Leo Babauta of the immensely popular blog Zen Habits has written an ebook on the subject, together with Eric Hamm from the blog Motivate Thyself. It’s a wonderful ebook consisting of essays on the topics of motivation and discipline. It’s not an ebook that you sit down for and read from cover to cover. The writers did not intend to make it that kind of book (and they succeeded at that ), but rather an ebook that is a valuable resource for people – wanting to achieve their goals – that get stuck in the process.

The ebook is a collection of essays that make you think (Eric’s articles are titled towards this kind), and essays that are highly actionable (which is primarily Leo’s domain). Think and do, I think Eric and Leo have found a great cooperation that’s better as a whole than the parts are on their own.

Move that bus!

I really like the metaphore Eric uses in one of his early chapters. He explains motivation using the concept of cars that have broken down.

Think about a car, sitting on a flat, paved road. The engine’s not running and the break is not engaged. Your job is to push the car past a certain point. So you lean into it and start pushing with all your might. At first it’s barely budging, but then starts creeping ahead. You dig deep and give it all you’ve got. The tires start to make their way around and the car starts moving forward. Now your energy is beginning to transfer from brute force to a kind of flow. The further you push the car, the easier it gets as momentum starts to make its way into the scenario. The motivation was the act of breaking the barrier between frozen and forward motion.

One of the things this metaphore reminded me of is the adage that people can only motivate themselves, and cannot be motivated! Interestingly though, he does not touch upon this aspect in the ebook.

Critical note

One critical note though…sometimes the ebook feels like a set of blogposts flung together. But even if it is the value that’s represented in the ebook outweighs that feeling. Maybe you can find all the info on the net too, but you know just as well as I do, that we’re not going to look for it! The ebook is a valuable set of articles that will change your ability to achieve your goals…as soon as you truly take responsibility and start doing things that move you forward!

My blogging break…

Makes you wonder…is my blogging break a motivation or a discipline problem? According to the ebook it’s a motivation problem, because discipline is a poor substitute for motivation. Interesting…I’m heading back in the book to read more. There’s lots to explore in there!

Go get your copy of The Ultimate Motivation Handbook right here for $14.95.

The last two days something really interesting is unfolding on some blogs I follow (and some I didn’t follow yet). It’s something like a pub crawl between blogs, with online entrepreneurs and freelancers challenging eachother to put each other’s lessons in practice.

Christine O’Kelly (Self Made Chick) was put “On Notice” by Dave Navarro (Freelance Folder / Million Dollar Leverage), when he decided to start a 30 trial by putting the lessons of Christine’s e-book into practice. Christine in return shouted out to Dave to “Show her the money“, taking up a similar trial with the time management lessons of Dave.

Both of them are pushing themselves to improve, and openly challenging, praising, questioning and discussing what they experience. It’s a lot of fun to follow and read and discuss along. More great people are following and discussing, like James Chartrand (Men with Pens), Monika Mundell (The Writers Manifesto), Michael Martine (Remarkablogger) and Naomi Dunford (Ittybiz).

eBooks

I somehow missed the fact that Christine published a 26-page eBook “How I Built A Profitable Freelance Business for Under $50 (And How You Can Too!)”. I got my copy, but have yet to read it (probably tonight).

I did download and read Dave Navarro’s eBook “How To Turn Your 24 Hour Day Into a 30 Hour Day”. Sign-up for his newsletter to get your copy. It’s a small e-book as well, but it really rung a bell with me. Dave touches on some points that I had discovered in recent months as well. He talks about not getting started, about keeping focus and eliminating distractions, about keeping yourself accountable for your goals and about having too many goals. So he got my attention!

Now where’s the cash?

Well the C.A.S.H. is a four-step program Dave discusses in his book:

• Clarity – identify your top priority using a checklist
• Accountability – review progress on a regular basis
• Strategy – adjust your strategy until your done!
• Honor – honor the process, by starting over

That’s in a nutshell where the cash is, and how you can find your 6 hours. If you want to know more about it, download the book.

My top priority? Plan my days!

Well, it’s been staring me in the face for a while now. When I used the simple checklists of Dave, they pointed out to me that I’m doing pretty good at my time results management already. My single top priority is to plan my days though. Planning my days is something that I have not been doing, but with a tendency to overcommit and a tendency to underestimate the time needed to complete a task, it’s quite essential.

So I created my own daily sheet to plan my day. Basically it’s a sheet of paper with a timetable divided into 30 minutes segments, with a column for my planning, a column for my actuals and a column for remarks. I’ll put it up for download soon. Update: download the daily planning sheet (pdf) here.

I’ve only been working with it for a day and a half now, so it’s hard to say that I have achieved results with it. I have noticed some thing already:

• It has made me more aware of how I spend my time and on what.
• It works as a focus tool, reminding me when I’m not working on the stuff I planned.
• It’s going to be a great reference to learn about how much time certain activities actually require.

And Dave’s convinced that most people who feel that they overcommit, are actually underplanning. So if I get this down, maybe I don’t feel overcommitted anymore.

I’ll keep you posted!

The positive worth of the individual is held constant, while the value and appropriateness of internal and/or external behavior is questioned.

This is one of the many NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) presuppositions and one of the original 8 of Richard Bandler.

What does NLP mean with the presupposition?
In short: The person is OK, the behavior might not be. We’re not questioning who you are, but what you do. Basically it says that NLP is free of judgment, we won’t judge you and neither should you. We do work together to see if we can get better results with internal or external behavior. It’s about what you do, not who you are.

Why is it necessary for NLP to believe this?
It provides a foundation of safety, because the interaction between people is free of judgment. It’s a good basis for talking or thinking freely about your behavior and how it serves you.

Can I find proof or personal experiences that support the presupposition?
This is more of a belief or attitude than something you can prove or disprove. You can choose to adopt it or not. Being free of judgment can be of tremendous value in interpersonal relationships. People don’t like to be judged.

Can I find proof or personal experiences that undermine the presupposition?
Not really. All I can say is that people are inclined to pass judgment unto others. That doesn’t disprove the presupposition, it just shows that it might be quite a lot of work to really adopt it.

In conclusion, how do I feel about this presupposition?
It’s a beauty! And quite a challenge as well

Time for you to talk
What do you think of this presupposition? Does it make sense to you? Do you have experiences or examples that might undermine this presupposition?

There is a positive intention motivating every behavior, and a context in which every behavior has value

This is one of the many NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) presuppositions and one of the original 8 of Richard Bandler.

What does NLP mean with the presupposition?
This is the presupposition that causes the most controversy. If there is a positive intention motivating every behavior, what do you make of all the crime? How’s that positive?

The key to this presupposition is that the positive intention is for the person executing the behavior. The intention is positive in that sense that reality looks better with that certain behavior than without, or it looks better after a certain action than before.

Often you’ll find an addition to this presupposition: “…and once was someone’s best choice.” So given the choices someone had, they executed the choice that seemed the best at the time, and the positive intention to have a better reality (for that person!) was the motivation.

Why is it necessary for NLP to believe this?
Down to the core this is a very positive presupposition. It basically says that every behavior has a benefit for a person. If we can find that benefit, the positive intention, we have the information to find other ways that include that benefit and add some more (or take away some negative effects).

Instead of feeling bad about a behavior, it makes us appreciate what it has brought us. This presupposition enables us to be creative and find another, but better solution.

Can I find proof or personal experiences that support the presupposition?
If I really look into my own behavior, there’s always a benefit for me. That doesn’t mean I like my behavior… but there are benefits and stopping the behavior might take that away, and that works as a resistance to change it.

This presupposition is also ‘proven’ by the Munchausen Syndrome. This is a disorder where people fake illness to get attention or sympathy. However strange the behavior and however harmful it may be, there is a positive intention: attention or sympathy. And faking the illness gives more of it, than acting normal would. Now this is an extreme and Munchausen is a psychiatric disorder, but it kind of proves the point.

Can I find proof or personal experiences that undermine the presupposition?
Not really. It can really be hard to find the positive intention in behavior of some people, especially when they inflict damage and pain, or even worse unto others. But although something is hard to imagine, it doesn’t disprove the point.

In conclusion, how do I feel about this presupposition?
I like this one a lot. At times it’s hard to see where the positive intention is in behavior, my own or other people’s behavior. But knowing that it is done with a positive intention and has a benefit, makes me look with ‘different eyes’. I try to see the value, and when appropriate help to get the same and more in a different way that creates more value for all that are concerned.

Time for you to talk
What do you think of this presupposition? Does it make sense to you? Do you have experiences or examples that might undermine this presupposition?

All distinctions human beings are able to make concerning our environment and our behavior can be usefully represented through the visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, and gustatory senses

This is one of the many NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) presuppositions and one of the original 8 of Richard Bandler.

What does NLP mean with the presupposition?
This presupposition is rather long and uses a lot of difficult words. To translate it into easier language: “Humans observe (changes in) behavior and environment by using the five senses (seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling and tasting).” It’s not exactly the same, but similar and easier to understand (and remember).

The key elements of this presupposition are our five senses, and they are used a lot in NLP. The first three (visual, auditory and kinesthetic – seeing, hearing and feeling) are the ones that are used the most.

Why is it necessary for NLP to believe this?
As people we need to have a common ground on which we can synchronize. Words might have different meanings between people, but when we get down to observations related to our senses, we often find this common ground.

When we get to descriptions that are based on sensory experiences, we have a means to really calibrate our meaning. If someone talks about yellow for instance, we can calibrate whether we are talking about the same thing by pointing at a yellow object.

This doesn’t mean that yellow is the same for everybody. There’s a long standing philosophical discussion about it: How to tell if the colour yellow I see, is the same as the colour yellow you see? One can only be sure when looking through other people’s eyes, and (besides a corneal transplant) that’s not possible yet.

Can I find proof or personal experiences that support the presupposition?
Well I do have those five senses, and they are the main way of observing the world. And most of what I experience can ultimately be described by using descriptions based on sensory perception.

Can I find proof or personal experiences that undermine the presupposition?
Here comes the so-called “sixth sense” to mind. What about precognition, telepathy or extra-sensory perception and the likes? They might not be proven, but are they untrue because of it? Hard to tell.

But even more commonly accepted phenomenons as intuition and synchronicity might not be directly related to the five senses. They have something mysterious about them, we know or believe they exist, but we don’t quite understand how they work.

In conclusion, how do I feel about this presupposition?
I’m inclined to believe this, but as a presupposition. I have a feeling that there might be more out there, that may or may not be directly related to these five senses. Who knows?

Time for you to talk
What do you think of this presupposition? Does it make sense to you? Do you have experiences or examples that might undermine this presupposition?

This is one of the many NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) presuppositions and one of the original 8 of Richard Bandler.

NLP presupposition in full
Feedback vs. Failure – All results and behaviors are achievements, whether they are desired outcomes for a given task/context, or not.

What does NLP mean with the presupposition?
Basically it says that you have created everything as far as results and behavior is concerned. It says that no matter what result you get, you can use it as feedback on what to do next or what to do differently. This is important! If you are not getting the response you get, regard that as feedback not as failure. There’s no such thing as failure.

This is one of the central themes of popular movies as What the Bleep Do We Know!? and The Secret. But it is also in different forms part of most self improvement books. A lot of these gurus will tell you that you are in control, and this presupposition is an underlying principle.

Why is it necessary for NLP to believe this?
When you are working with NLP you have a lot of techniques and insights in how communication works. However it still is no guarantee that you get the desired results instantly and consistently. There are various reasons why you’re not getting the results you desired. It is important not to regard it as failure (either by you or by the other), but to try something else and see what kind of feedback that gives you. It might just be what you wanted, and if not…try something else.

Can I find proof or personal experiences that support the presupposition?
This presupposition is primarily a mindset, kind of like the presupposition “The meaning of the communication is the response you get” is. These presuppositions are correlated in my opinion. They look at the same principle, but from different angles.

How do you prove a mindset? I don’t know how to, and I feel no need to. This is a mindset that appeals to me and puts me in control of the results I get. This is so empowering to me, that only that result is reason enough to make this a credible presupposition.

Can I find proof or personal experiences that undermine the presupposition?
As I wrote in my review of The Secret, not everything in your life is created by you. There are circumstances that are just there, they are not a result of what you did or did not do. How you deal with them is up to you. But then again this presupposition specifically addresses results and behavior, so I don’t have a problem with presupposition.

In conclusion, how do I feel about this presupposition?
This is so empowering that I had already integrated this into my guidelines a long time ago. The way I formulated it was “There is no failure, only feedback I can learn from”. So in short: I like it!

Time for you to talk
What do you think of this presupposition? Does it make sense to you? Do you have experiences or examples that might undermine this presupposition?

This is one of the many NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) presuppositions and one of the original 8 of Richard Bandler.

What does NLP mean with the presupposition?
This is a tough one. I have re-read this presupposition many times, and to be frank, it’s not an easy to understand statement. I’m cutting it in pieces to take a closer look.

The ability to change the process by which we experience reality
So there is a process by which we experience reality. Makes sense, this is acquiring and processing all the sensory information, consciously and unconsciously. The phrase ‘experience reality’ is a reflection upon another presupposition ‘The map is not the territory’. Our experience and reality are not the same.

is often more valuable than changing the content of our experience of reality
The tricky part is in the end of this sentence: ‘the content of our experience of reality’. There is a hidden assumption in this presupposition, that it is possible to change the content of our experience of reality. Can we do that? If we can’t, this presupposition won’t make any sense at all.

Changing the content of our experience of reality, this can be done in two ways I guess. Prevent and ‘forget’. First we can change reality by prevention. If for instance you always get nauseous riding a bus, stop taking the bus, and you won’t get nauseous anymore.

But we can also change our memory of reality. If the content of our experience is ‘nauseous’, we can do our best to change our memory to ‘uncomfortable’ or even ‘happy’. Some people are very good at reframing their memories. This is also changing the content of our experience of reality, but about the past.

Now that we understand what it is about, this presupposition states that changing the process is more valuable than changing the content. So this means that working on how we deal with reality is more valuable than avoiding reality or altering memories about reality.

Why is it necessary for NLP to believe this?
NLP works with both with changing the content of the experience of reality, as in reframing memories of past events. And also with changing the process of experiencing reality, this is the foundation of a lot of techniques in NLP.

Changing the process is more valuable than the content, because it will prevent new bad experiences (I’m assuming bad experiences for now) in the future. Changing the content is like ‘cleaning up the past’, but if the inflow of bad memories doesn’t stop it will keep on getting back as work (a lot of the classical therapy is based on this by the way).

Changing the content is valuable when it is part of the process. If we look at someone with arachnophobia (fear of spiders), the memory of a spider might be part of the process of experiencing current reality.

‘I saw a spider, and I remembered the time when I was bitten by this big mean evil hairy scary spidermonster, and I feel the anxious need to leave the room immediately.’

At that time, changing the content is part of changing the process. This is a presupposition with a lot of uses.

Can I find proof or personal experiences that support the presupposition?
For all three parts I have to say yes. People can change the content of their experience of reality (stop taking the bus, or alter their memory of the event), they have the ability to change the process (people have been cured from phobias).

And about changing the process is more valuable than changing the content I have an opinion. My opinion is that prevention is better than correction, but finding proof for that is hard I guess. This is more or less a belief.

Can I find proof or personal experiences that undermine the presupposition?
That would be a no. Of course there are instances where I wanted to change something that didn’t work out. But that only proves that I haven’t found the right method yet, not that it can’t be done.

In conclusion, how do I feel about this presupposition?
I agree with it. I do believe that prevention is better than correction, and I believe people have the ability to change the process of experiencing reality. But I have to say that for a study that focuses on the effect of communication as much as NLP, this presupposition is not very clearly formulated. The fact that English is not my mother tongue can be a factor, but I think it easily confuses people.

Time for you to talk
What do you think of this presupposition? Does it make sense to you? Do you have experiences or examples that might undermine this presupposition?

This is one of the many NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) presuppositions and one of the original 8 of Richard Bandler.

What does NLP mean with the presupposition?

Quite like it says actually. This presupposition tells us that we already have what it takes to change. We might not know how to use these resources or where to find them, but they are already within you. You have experiences, feelings and attitudes now and in the past, that you can use to change what you want to change.

This presupposition says that you have experiences where you felt strong, proud, assertive, caring, loved, inspired and so on. We can tap into those past experiences and use them as a resource for the change we want to establish.

In a way this presupposition says: ‘Yes you can…because you already have before!‘

This presupposition does not say that you have everything available. It’s quite possible that you don’t have any experience with a certain resource, but that a combination of other resources works for you as well. There is no generic answer to what resource is the best, that can only be determined by the individuals themselves.

Why is it necessary for NLP to believe this?

Past experiences are often used to replace current beliefs with new beliefs, in order to change the expected behavior to the desired behavior. All from the perspective of the individual. In NLP we believe that people can always find a combination of resources that will have the effect of changing their behavior to their desired behavior.

For some people it may be only one resource, but for others it might take as much as ten resources. I guess that the more resources you need, the harder the change is going to be for the individual. But given enough determination and enough repetition of replacing beliefs they will succeed.

Can I find proof or personal experiences that support the presupposition?

I have used this in the past. One of my powerful experiences is when I had the practical exam for my driving license for my motorcycle. I was so confident that I would pass the exam, that I wasn’t nervous at all. Everything about me radiated the confidence, because afterwards I heard that the man who took the exam said to my instructor after just 500 meter: ‘Okay, looks very good, he will pass.’ How cool is that!

I can recall this feeling very easy and have already many times. Whenever a situation comes up that might make me nervous (my stomach will tell me), simply visualizing riding a motorcycle, makes me confident and at ease instantly.

Can I find proof or personal experiences that undermine the presupposition?

The opposite of this presupposition is also true. We also have all the resources available to prevent a change from taking place (this is behavior as well). If the change is not something that the individual wants, they will tap into resources to prevent it from happening.

A key aspect of focus in my opinion is to (let the individual) make sure that the change is really a desired change. It needs to be authentic, and the expected benefits must be greater than the benefits of the current behavior (which always exist).

In conclusion, how do I feel about this presupposition?

I love it! This (again?) gives you control over what you can achieve. If the resources are already within you, you just have to find them, use them to your advantage and get what you want. And if you already have done it once, you can use that to do it again, and again, and again.

Time for you to talk

What do you think of this presupposition? Does it make sense to you? Do you have experiences or examples that might undermine this presupposition?

This is one of the many NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) presuppositions and one of the original 8 of Richard Bandler.

What does NLP mean with the presupposition?
Often we define what we intend to say as the meaning of the communication. And although it is the intended meaning, people can react in very different ways to your communication. NLP suggests that the reponse to the communication defines its meaning. It takes the perspective of the receiving end.

If you intend to make a joke and someone responds by starting to cry, the intended meaning (sharing some fun) and the actual perceived meaning (crying) are very different. This presupposition says that ‘crying’ is the real meaning of the communication.

NLP focuses more on the subjective experience of the communication than on the content of the communication. This makes this presupposition more interesting, it may not be what you said, but how you said it that triggered the response.

Why is it necessary for NLP to believe this?
Our own communication can be changed by ourselves. We cannot change the perception on the other side, not directly anyway. So if we look for the response to our communication, we get feedback on how well the intended communication was received. If it was not received like it was intended, we can change our communication or the way we communicate to try another approach. Repeating the same behavior will give you the same response (but that’s another presupposition on its own).

Can I find proof or personal experiences that support the presupposition?
This is more or less an attitude instead of a belief. How do you prove an attitude? You don’t. This attitude is also aligned with Covey’s 5th habit: Seek first to understand and then to be understood. It’s taking the other’s perspective before taking your own.

Can I find proof or personal experiences that undermine the presupposition?
Along the same lines as the previous question, there can be no proof to an attitude. I do think that sometimes it’s impossible to get an understanding. Sometimes people are simply not interested or capable of understanding. So if you try to explain something and people look bored, puzzled or confused, you know what the meaning of your communication was

In conclusion, how do I feel about this presupposition?
I agree with this attitude and with this presupposition. This presupposition makes you responsible for the communication, not the other.

Time for you to talk
What do you think of this presupposition? Does it make sense to you? Do you have experiences or examples that might undermine this presupposition?