Quote:
Budd Yuhasz wrote:
Interesting further discussion on who "should" get access to this stuff. My little side question for those working on these things - isn't there kind of a filter in place already as far as who is going to be able to develop these skills?
It's not as if a seminar (or two, or three) is going to make anyone come away with magic powers. From my very limited understanding, the basics can be shown in person, but then it's up to the practitioner to put in immense quantities of time rewiring the body.
If someone is already putting on the pose of "yeah, I do that", how likely are they to be putting in the work to legitimately get somewhere (or recognize that they've got a long way to go or be willing to accept the feedback that they've got a long way to go OR -- accept the possibility that they may NEVER get there)?
Or on the other side of the coin, if someone is flat-out in denial that these things exist and are valid - such folks are often very good at applying their "filter" to demonstrations or hands-on work so that they coincide with their worldview/belief system. In other words, you can lead a horse to water . . . but you know the rest . . . .
In either case, I don't see a willingness to actually "forge" the skills/body. But I guess I'm asking you folks with more experience - have you seen examples where people were shown these skills, worked on them to develop actual ability and then somewhere else it went badly?
|
Good points, Budd. I'll usually prod people a little bit who already claim expertise to see exactly what their motivations are. Only a few people are really interested in exploring an art to these depths unless they have a reasonable body of their peers doing the same thing. In other words, the herd instinct is one of the main factors at work.
The second thing is that there is an IQ threshold to all of this. Not everyone can get it (have the day-to-day insights from smarts and hard work) or would be willing to devote the time and effort. You kind of have to watch people and separate the possibles from the "probably nots" in order to maximize any efforts you're going to spend with the ones who have the right qualities. It would take a special reason (I can't think of one, TBH) to devote time to someone with an obvious personality deficiency.
Personally, I'm old enough to know how many times we misjudge people, etc., so I'm usually willing to show just about anyone the starters, but if they don't show any results and personal insights after a period of time, I quit bothering with it. The ones I watch for ask questions which show they've been thinking and that they've figured a few things out alread *and* they show an increase in skills from the last time I saw them. If people can't get the basics, then it's doubtful that they'll get much else (not that I know much else) beyond that in a reasonable amount of time.
I.e., it's a crap-shoot. Only bright, motivated people will really get it. People who have a "bad heart" shouldn't be even bothered with, in my personal opinion (recognizing that others have their own standards, of course). So generally, the traditional ways of "who to teach" are not that far off, in principle, from the selection processes I sort of fall into with common sense.
Best.
Mike