For a few months I’m a bit flummoxed by this position because I know that this client is going to have a very strong reaction to REALLY being made aware of what they are doing and WORSE that their explanations are in fact always wrong.
Can YOU reading this appreciate how difficult it is going to be to tell someone whose pride and joy is the functioning of their mind and head, that their ‘head’, their ‘thinking’ is somehow automatically sabotaging their ability to openly evaluate themselves.
Can you understand how difficult it’s going to be for them to accept this?
How would YOU reading this react to someone trying to explain this to you? That YOUR thinking abilities ARE being corrupted and that your derived explanations are always wrong?
Perhaps at this moment NOW you might be finding out just HOW OPEN you YOURSELF actually are to EVEN just considering what I am writing here as a POSSIBILITY?
That your thinking is compromised at this moment now.
How easy is it to allow yourself to openly think about this as a possibility?
Because I do know how difficult it is and I do appreciate how resistant others are to even vaguely considering this as a possibility then what I do with this client is this;
At the end of their very impressive explanation I would say something like;
“hey, sounds reasonable . . . BUT eh!! . . . I actually think that eh!! . . . what this ACTUALLY means is this; Blah, blah, blah and blah . . . AND, if what I am saying is right then if we explore ‘THESE’ areas we’ll probably find what is doing this.
Lets do this NOW . . .”
I would then immediately begin to guide this client through exploring to reveal and identify what was ‘subtly’ impacting these particular areas.
This client was one of my most multidimensional aware clients. Their multidimensional capabilities are phenomenal virtually on par with my own while also matched with a paranoia about anyone outside of our little circle becoming aware that they had these abilities. Which sadly is fairly typical for a science, purported to be rational type.
So, as soon as we started ANY subtle explorations this client would be as directly aware as myself of anything that ‘appeared’ and THEY WERE. Which meant that they would very quickly get absorbed in figuring out the interesting business of how to sort out what we found and of directly dealing with this.
So ‘WE’ as in this CLIENT and myself always found that their very convincing explanations were always wrong.
Because I know how difficult it is for a ‘rational’ ‘assured’ type to come to terms with these areas (as it was for me) then I do the above rushed “lets just check this NOW” strategy for a while.
I never actually directly point out that their current explanation is wrong never mind attempt to remind them that all of their explanations so far have been wrong. I never mention this. I don’t give enough time for any arguments either, I just go directly to the “Lets check this out NOW”
I KNOW from my own experience that people like this probably need a HUGE base of contradictory data making them gradually aware that what they think they are coherently thinking and are COMPLETELY convinced is correct is ACTUALLY . . . 100% FALSE . . .
So, how long do you think I keep using this approach? A week? A month?
Just how many of these ‘experiments’ will be needed? How many? Would that be 6 or 10 or 20 or even more. How many would it take do you think before it would sink in that you’re always wrong AND as someone supposedly part of something that is about looking at yourself and becoming aware of things AND telling me of them or actually TELLING ME OF THIS?
How long do you think it would it take before this happened with this client?
If this was YOU reading this in this position then how many examples of ‘wrong’ explanations do you think it would take for YOU to not only figure out that something is VERY amiss with your own evaluations but to actually get around to mentioning this to me?
How many times after you’ve given your own explanation for me to give mine and of you after checking of finding that your own ‘convincing’ explanations are virtually always wrong would this have to happen before you get round to mentioning this?
If you are a ‘rational’, thinking so called ‘intelligent’ type what sample size would you need to reach a statistical consensus never mind a personal one? Would you imagine that it might take say 5 or maybe 10 such examples for a very self assured type to figure out that something is very amiss AND get round to mentioning this?
I was expecting that they WOULD at some point mention the problem of the “Always Wrong Explanations” but amazingly it never actually happened. In fact I continue with the “Lets check this out NOW” strategy for a little longer that a year. That’s a whole year of about 2-3 times a week having a 49 out of 50 success rate not only confirming my explanations but getting rid of nasty ‘invisible’ subtle shit at the same time.
At this point I then very casually enquire if they have noticed that their evaluations are not quite the same as mine and would they like to explore NOW to find what might be responsible for this?
I don’t make a big thing of it and so we do this exploration and boy it’s a biggie and takes a huge amount of effort to dig up and get rid of. It takes about a half hour of intense exploring as I recall.
During which we get rid of the very rational, very coherent, very convincing “lets make sure this person never ‘really’ thinks about ‘themselves” . . . fantasy confident explanation generator . . . .
I am serious here, there was a very sophisticated subtle implant type device managing his evaluations and making up his explanations AND making this person very confident about them. AND, we get rid of this.
Can you imagine what happens next?