| |
Discussion:
Paul Ekman's Latest -
Paul Ekman's Latest (I guess could have posted this on any any of the "NLP in Focus" forums)
some of you may already know of Paul Ekman and his work with cataloging? the facial expressions that accompany the emotional states people experience. NLP Practiioner training of course teaches calibration,yet you can get a "headstart" on others or improve your skill until you can afford training. Paul Ekmans's METT software is a first rate calibration training tool for helping to spot those times when people are pissed, sad,annoyed, frustrated, etc. (there are those of us of course who need more help with this than others). and some people are just harder to read/calibrate anyway. I have no relationship with Paul Ekman or his company.
www.mettonline.com
Jim
-
Last edited by Bubblyjack; 6th Jul 08 at 07:21 pm.
-
Re: Paul Ekman's Latest I agree Jim. The program is first rate. Everyone should own it.
-
-
Re: Paul Ekman's Latest Hi All,
And if you've had a lot of experience doing NLP calibration, you might just find METT (calibrating fleeting microexpressions) easy peasy. I got 100% first time through and I suspect many NLPers will do the same.
Ekman's work is worthwhile, methinks. As to whether or not it's useful for you, how will you know until you look?
Be Well,
Michael Perez
-
Re: Paul Ekman's Latest I used the Micro Expression Training Tool and also got a high score, which was pleasing. (Not that it's a competition - it's a training tool of course and the idea is to get better.) I guess sensory acuity is like a muscle - it gets stronger the more you exercise it.
I'm very interested in Ekman's work. I've only looked at the basics but when I finish my current programme of learning, I'm going to turn my attention to that.
Cheers
-
 map002 wrote:
 Hi All,
And if you've had a lot of experience doing NLP calibration, you might just find METT (calibrating fleeting microexpressions) easy peasy. I got 100% first time through and I suspect many NLPers will do the same.
Ekman's work is worthwhile, methinks. As to whether or not it's useful for you, how will you know until you look?
Be Well,
Michael Perez unfortunately, those expressions at METT flash by WAY to fast for me. I couldn't get one without having to press the hold button JIm
-
Re: Paul Ekman's Latest Hi Jim,
I've got no doubt that you'll just use this as an opportunity to realize that you already know this and therefore it's not about noticing them so much as it might be noticing that you somehow know what they were even though you couldn't notice them in the usual way that you notice things and I wonder how much better it will be when you learn more and more about noticing what you already know you noticed without knowing how you know and letting yourself be guided by that so that you can test and check to see if you were right or if you were just learning this time? 
Just an idea!
Be Well,
Michael Perez
-
map002 wrote:
Hi Jim,
I've got no doubt that you'll just use this as an opportunity to realize that you already know this and therefore it's not about noticing them so much as it might be noticing that you somehow know what they were even though you couldn't notice them in the usual way that you notice things and I wonder how much better it will be when you learn more and more about noticing what you already know you noticed without knowing how you know and letting yourself be guided by that so that you can test and check to see if you were right or if you were just learning this time?
Just an idea!
Be Well,
Michael Perez Michael thank you so much for mismatching me. now share withl me what you REALLY meant to say Jim
-
Oh, you're spoiling my fun, Jim!
Underneath the gobbeldy-gook I said...
- You already know the material you're sorting for (facial expressions)
- You process sensory stimuli unconsciously first and faster than you consciously understand that stimuli
- Therefore if you sort for information coming from your adaptive unconscious processes re: the stimuli, you'll find you already know the information, albeit not in consciousness.
- Once you learn to calibrate and rely on unconscious intuitive knowledge, you'll do much better.
There, now you know it at two levels! 
Be Well,
Michael Perez
-
Hi All,
An aside prompted by my last post.
While we're on the subject of calibration...
My advice to any of you who are getting better and better at calibration is to consider checking and rechecking *any* calibration you make, intuitive or otherwise and go with the preponderance of evidence.
And as you get better and better, this becomes better and better advice, I've found. Sometimes it seems the best of us can forget this.
Using a single data point for calibration, instinctive or not, and failing to drop the calibration when it doesn't match the other data can go disastrously wrong.
And any calibration more than 30 seconds old or once the context shifts needs to be dropped and recalibration done.
I've run into way too many examples of these kinds of errors recently, so I think it's worth bringing up.
A valuable thing might be to think of a calibration as being only a possibility. The more data that backs it up, the more possible or probable it becomes. And if you're ever sure you're right, might that not be a good time to ask yourself the question, 'Am I sure enough to be unsure?'
Be Well,
Michael Perez
-
map002 wrote:
Oh, you're spoiling my fun, Jim!
Underneath the gobbeldy-gook I said... - You already know the material you're sorting for (facial expressions)
- You process sensory stimuli unconsciously first and faster than you consciously understand that stimuli
- Therefore if you sort for information coming from your adaptive unconscious processes re: the stimuli, you'll find you already know the information, albeit not in consciousness.
- Once you learn to calibrate and rely on unconscious intuitive knowledge, you'll do much better.
There, now you know it at two levels!
Be Well,
Michael Perez Michael Y-O-U may process stimuli in that way but that doesn't mean I do I know what I know...... and don't. after all this, I 'm not even sure I want to mention John Navarro's Course on decoding Poker Tells . I can pretty much guess what you say about that.
-
Re: Paul Ekman's Latest Wow, Jim, I was being light-hearted and it seems that's not translating really well. I was pointing out some distinctions that were helpful to me and that's not seeming to be helpful for you for whatever reason. I'm cool with that.
Please say what you like about John Navarro's course and I promise I'll keep my mouth shut. And if you can imagine that I'm saying that in a friendly, helpful way with a smile and warm tonality, that will be what I'm trying to get across.
Be Well,
Michael Perez
-
Re: Paul Ekman's Latest As for calibration, learn to overlap peoples parasympathetic sympathetic nervous system changes into a feeling. Skin tonus etc
| |
Reply With Quote
