Community Blog — Click "New Topic" to post your thoughts.

[1] 2 3 ... 7
xx About transparency in the workplace
December 02, 2017, 02:17:26 AM by Kerry
A 12/2/17 program on HPR discussed some of the considerations about transparency in the workplace, specifically about all employees knowing each other's pay and, all employees being able to both access and provide input to each other's performance evaluations.

Transparency is about openness and honesty; everyone knows most everything about the company. Significant meetings are videotaped for everyone to see. Such a system is referred to as a meritocracy; a system in which leadership, pay, and promotions are based upon ability and performance.  New hires and equipment, expansion investments, and salary decisions are voted on by all employees.*

One particular concern for those applying to work for such an organization, someone committed to telling the truth, is how to answer the question when a job interviewer asks, "How much did you make in your last job?" In a non-meritocracy organization in which few know anyone's salary, your answer would be a significant factor in determining the salary they would offer you. The narrator of the HPR program didn't mention that if the new company has a transparency policy then, as a new hire, one can be certain that his/her salary will be consistent with what all employees have voted for it to be. 

* In such a company everyone knows hourly (typically posted on a lunchroom monitor) the statistics for the day, month, and year. i.e. Contacts-presentations vs sales, itemized expenses, attendance, accidents, promotions, birthdays, employee's newborns, etc.  Everyone is completely aware of what needs to take place for the business to survive, including safely managed retirement funds; there are no surprise layoffs. Most importantly, all communications are delivered responsibly, zero blame or gossiping.

Note: If you would like to have a Skype-type video conversation with a leadership-relationship communication-skills coach about starting a meritocracy, or about transitioning to or even transforming a present system into a meritocracy, do The Clearing Process —it's free**; it will give you an excellent experience of the leadership communication-skills that support meritocracy.  For example: You can never attract and retain a partner or employee who is more honest than you. A boss involved in deceptions causes (yes causes) those around him/her to withhold their own thoughts of choice. Deceptors attract deceptors—there no exceptions. 


** Reading about The Clearing Process supports communication mastery—most are not ready to play with such integrity.
 
I believe a group, company or organization should never be larger than one in which there are no secrets. The first thought withheld from a partner in any relationship negatively affects the integrity and outcomes. —Kerry

Last edited 12/26/17
xx Considerations about "The Healer" —a TV series.
November 21, 2017, 11:08:45 PM by Kerry
The TV series titled The Healer portrays Charlie Goldsmith who has a unique ability to disappear or significantly minimize a person's ailment using energy and intention. Most often a "treatment" causes a greater range of motion with considerably less, or no pain.

Charlie spends a very few minutes asking some questions about the location and intensity (1 -10) of the pain. He uses this feedback as an indicator of any difference after his brief (2-3 minute) treatment.  He then closes his eyes and harnesses a baseball-size energy ball between his hands (his hands are hovering above his lap) and mentally directs the energy to the affected area in the patient's body. Sometimes he places his hand a few inches from the affected area; at other times he places a hand directly on the patient.

All patients report confusion and amazement at the change in pain intensity or the new-found painless motions of a previously painful motion-restricting arm, leg, or back.* 

To the recipient of a treatment this gift is experienced as a miracle but without the beliefs—often religious words or prayers—usually associated with miraculous healing.

My consideration about the obvious healings is that the process, healing via energy and intention, does not appear to address the source of an ailment. In other words, Charlie does not ask the patient when it began. He doesn't ask what thought comes to mind when they look to see if their health condition is possibly a consequence of some incomplete, an out-integrity or a prior unacknowledged perpetration (see Communications in Support of Health). Most importantly, it doesn't address ones unconscious intentions to have had the ailment.

I'm looking forward to follow-ups as to the permanence of each patient's ailment.**

* Having suffered intense pain myself I'm surprised at the reactions of each "healed" patient. Just watching the process I'm often moved to tears (re-experiencing the immediate relief from pain via morphine for a gunshot wound in Vietnam) yet none of the patients communicated immense appreciation or joy. Most non-verbally communicate surprise and doubt. It appears that they first doubt that the pain is less or gone; one can see them looking for it and it's not there.

** If a significant percentage of healings are permanent then the process disappears both the source (the cause, wiping clean the karmic slate so to speak) of a health problem (including an unconscious intention to have had the problem) and the result (its manifestation, its pain, its symptoms, etc.).  In religious terms the process appears to force one to forgive oneself and all others, to complete a specific (usually childhood) incomplete.

Last edited 11/25/17
xx How much lead have we put in the ocean?
October 31, 2017, 12:53:40 AM by Kerry
It appears that most of us believe that the amount of lead weights fishermen have lost to snaggy bottoms, say for the past 50 years, has not significantly increased the ppm of lead in sea water therefore seafood, ultimately our brains.*

I'm talking about tons of lead fishing weights being grinded down with each wave on sea shores along thousands of miles of the world's great fishing spots.

"In 1919 the spent lead pellets from waterfowl hunting was positively identified as a major source of deaths of bottom-feeding waterfowl." In 1991, 72 years later, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service banned lead shot in migratory waterfowl hunting. The point being, it took brilliant scientists 72 years to effectively communicate a health-significant truth,

Why did it take 72 years, but only for lead buckshot? What most don't know is that there is a difference between saying, telling, putting out, announcing, publishing, lecturing, and, communication. When communication takes place the subject is gotten it's recreated.

For decades researchers have been measuring the lead in fish, crustaceans and the frequent sea mammal beachings; we assume that dangerous findings would be front page news. However, few researchers spend as much time studying both their specialty and their leadership-communication skills, ergo, they have yet to learn how to share significant truths/findings effectively. It's not that they haven't shared their findings, they have been for 72+ years, just ineffectively.

Hunters eventually opted for lead-free shotgun pellets.

Perhaps in a century lead will be as valuable as gold and weekend miners will farm the sea shores.

Last edited 11/2/17

* Per Lenntech "Seawater contains trace amounts of lead (2-30 ppt). On average rivers contain between 3 and 30 ppb. Phytoplankton contains approximately 5-10 ppm lead (dry mass), freshwater fish approximately 0.5-1000 ppb, and oyster approximately 500 ppb.
The World Health Organization (WHO) stated a legal limit of 50 ppb for lead in 1995, which is decreased to 10 ppb in 2010."

Read: more


xx Media's reporting of inappropriate communication "victims."
October 14, 2017, 01:26:28 AM by Kerry
I'm having a problem with the media's reporting of many of Harvey Weinstein's "victims." I've yet to hear a "victim" communicate responsibly, from cause, as to how she, using her leadership communication-skills, seduced Harvey into seducing her; most sound like a blaming Leah Remini Scientology "They did it to me victim."   Whaaat? Too soon? Perhaps it's not yet time evolution-wise to address our addiction to blaming and to enabling blamers—evidenced by the fact that the media continually enables blamers.*

I learned about choices and who to work and socialize with during K-12. Throughout life I have learned to not work for the mafia, or to accept an invitation to a church's pot-luck, or a White Supremacist's Social. Why? Because most of us intuit the possibilities. We know the actual, ethics, morals, and values of our mostly male dominated entertainment, business and legal world. A person of integrity cannot survive in most businesses except that they are continually compromising their integrity.  I.e. A teen girl who conned boys into paying for her dates (a girl who opted to seduce a boy into marrying her to take care of her financially, one who did not choose to become a professional) seldom makes the connection between her unacknowledged out-integrities and undesirable consequences later in life.

As a teen I knew to look for girls who could be conned into deceiving her parents so as to have sex. A "No possibility of sex" is clearly communicated non-verbally; it's a visceral aura of "on-purpose" with tinges of self-righteousness. For such a determined woman it would unethical to date (or even "accidentally" mislead) someone not of her social-economic status. TV and movies are rife with plots about the folly of dating one's boss. No teen girl has not said to herself, while watching a movie of some slick dude conning an "innocent" girl into going to his apartment, "No! No! Don't go! He's want to get in your pants."

People who work in certain professions generate specific predictable problems that cause one to compromise his/her integrity hourly.  Such compromises always generate undesirable and appropriate karma, specifically, zero experiences of joy and happiness each day.

Some examples:

1. In most police departments all the "good" cops vote daily, non-verbally, to retain at least one dishonest fellow officer, thereby submitting the public to ....  —such a compromise serves as a barrier to joy. The same phenomenon applies to law enforcement spouses who know at least one fellow-spouse who is involved in adultery/deceptions.

2. Most every teacher knows at least one fellow teacher who should not be teaching children, yet these ostensibly "good" teachers daily submit children to this wanna be teacher—always for reasons. 

3. Most employees thwart their boss/supervisors by non-verbally condoning badmouthing by others.

Having facilitated thousands of hours of one-to-one 3-hr leadership-relationship communication-skills coaching sessions I've never come across anyone who could not recall how they caused a particular outcome—the specific communication that was the turning point that revealed their cause for an outcome; all can recall their (at-the-time) hidden agenda—what they were unconsciously up to. For example: A "victim" of cheating unconsciously masterminding their divorce.

* No conscious responsible reporter would support such blaming, therefore the reports don't speak well for the self-policing integrity of the media.

Here's more about "date rape".

Note: The media and I have been afraid to address responsibility.

Last edited 12/24/17
xx President Trump inspires genuine communication
October 05, 2017, 10:08:03 PM by Kerry
I believe that President Trump's legacy will be as the leader who inspired universities to require leadership-communication training of all education and healthcare majors (none do now).* Such a curriculum will facilitate the transition from the present Adversarial Communication Model** being taught to students nationwide to the Intentional Communication Model (a.k.a.  Mutually Satisfying Communication Model).

Most agree that President Trump is causing more people to participate in conversations about truth. Teens can see the effects of his bragging, badmouthing, blaming and lying; specifically, that it works. One doesn't need to tell the truth to be a powerful influence. More than ever, teens question our sanity, our intelligence, that we, the populace, are so ineffectual, so powerless. I've yet to see a reporter have Trump acknowledge a single lie. (NY Times: "Trump Told Lies or Falsehoods Every Day for His First 40 Days.")   

Trump is training our teens to be even more disrespectful of authority and leadership. Could it be that a younger generation will get so fed up with our enabling behaviors that they will wrest control of all governments?

* Trump's behaviors speak volumes about the graduates and staff of the "prestigious" college of Wharton. What does it say about our entire education system?

** The Adversarial Communication Model is characterized by win-lose-get-ahead at the expense of others, badmouthing gossip, and deceit (withholding significant thoughts in significant relationships).  i.e. The majority of couples, during a heated divorce, reveal our addiction to blame. Our nation's Speech-Communication teachers don't teach students how to communicate responsibly.

Trump is revealing the curriculum required for mutually satisfying communication mastery. That is to say, Trump has mastered a particular way of communicating (a communication model) that doesn't feel good to most; it causes confusion and worry.

Last edited 12/3/17   
xx About Leah Remini — Scientology and the Aftermath
August 30, 2017, 10:14:15 AM by Kerry
I've been watching Leah Remini's TV expose of the Church of Scientology. Her interviews don't speak well for the church's communication courses. Leah and the ex church members she interviewed have not addressed the correlation between personal integrity and outcomes—all reveal their addictions to blaming and badmouthing. i.e. The "church" or its staff did it to me.

Whenever I hear another blaming another it doesn't feel good. None of those Leah interviewed communicated responsibly.  For example: "To address and confront my addiction to blaming, I, using my leadership-communication skills, set up the church to brainwash me, to control me, to use me, etc." 

I didn't see or hear any victims or bullies, only consenting sparring partners, all stuck in blame and make-wrong.
xx Prison for talking friend into suicide—a significant ruling
August 05, 2017, 01:26:52 AM by Kerry
KXAN "Teen girl charged with manslaughter for encouraging friend to commit suicide." Or, as I would have reported; teen girl in prison for recreating a friend's intention, for communicating in support of his intention to kill himself.* —euphemistically referred to as assisted suicide.

The judge reportedly ". . . focused his ruling . . ." on three words “Get back in,” and sentenced her to 15-months in prison. "Get back in" referring to her communication when he temporarily got out of the car—which he was using to kill himself via exhaust gas.

Here's some cookies for your mind: (Not to worry, I don't think the following contains enough words to kill you.)

How many words does it take to be jailed for the results of a communication between you and another?: One word: "Quit." Two words: "Stop now." Or, the alleged killing blow: "Get back in." —you can get where this is going. Eventually we'd arrive at 1,130,296 words (the entire "court testimony") all the words, from beginning to end, that Michelle Carter texted in support of Conrod Roy killing himself.

The judge's decision acknowledges Newton's 3rd Law. "For every action there is an equal and opposite (force)** reaction." From now on a smartphone recording (either text or a verbal message) containing the words, "Screw you, you lazy ass-hole. I hope you die." could be used to convict you of any action your partner may take—including suicide or murder.

The decision further acknowledges that Conrod was not responsible for setting Michelle up to talk him into killing himself. In truth we know that Conrod used his leadership-communication-skills to con her into talking him into killing himself, as does the "victim" of spouse abuse who cons their partner into hitting them. The decision brings to light the confusion of the definition of the word responsible (as in cause).
 
The long range implications of this decision is that eventually police will arrest both partners involved in domestic abuse. The premise: A "victim's" communication causes the violence—both equally intended the abuse and both blame the other. In other words, if a person can talk another into killing him/herself using just 1,130,296 words then anyone can use fewer words to get another to hit them.

The judge's decision places greater blame on the woman for the results of their communications.

The decision poses the question: "Can you be absolved of murdering someone if another talked you into it?

* The word intention has an uncomfortable definition; "Results equals intention." For example: The way to discover what your intentions have been, using your leadership-communication skills, is to look at the results you've been producing (for yourself and for those with whom you relate). Typically a blamer will say, "If I hurt your feeling I didn't mean it." The word 'if" communicates invalidation and denial yet the results prove otherwise. 

** The word "force" means that words have power, they exert a force on another.   The judge implies that one person's communications can exert a greater force on another and therefore if another's words feel forceful, uncomfortable then a "victim" is choosing to be forced, led, guided, ruled, controlled. What's ignored is that non-verbal communications have equal power as evidence by the public consistently thwarting fundings requested by their former teachers-mentors.  Read: The Teacher's Pay Conversations Project and About Leah Remini — Scientology and the Aftermath.

Last edited 10/29/17
xx Pistol-buying tip for seniors
July 29, 2017, 11:13:25 PM by Kerry
If you are a considering buying a pistol for self-defense/home protection, this senior recommends a revolver rather than a semi-automatic pistol.

The reason? Many seniors are prone to arthritis, others lose some grip-strength, and still others lose some coordination. A semi-automatic pistol requires thumb and finger dexterity and strength to pull back the slide so as to chamber a round. Note: Some women have not developed their upper arm and hand strength. Also, inserting rounds into a semi-automatic pistol's magazine requires some strength, coordination and dexterity such as pressing down against a spring and finessing the round into place.

A semi-automatic pistol may be easy to use today but ten years from now, in a stressful (possibly panicky-confusing) emergency situation, it might not be so easy.

For home protection/self defense I recommend a double-action, stainless steel, 4" barrel, .38 caliber revolver. Example of revolvers: http://www.range365.com/12-best-revolvers-you-can-buy-new#page-7.

  • "Double action" means that when you pull the trigger the hammer cocks and the gun fires—without having to manually pull back the hammer. Simply release the safety and pull the trigger. For target practice you can manually cock the hammer. A cocked hammer makes it a bit easier to pull the trigger.
  • "Stainless steel" is less susceptible to rust, requires less yearly oiling and cleaning.
  • .38 caliber? Most agree that a .22 caliber round will not stop a determined (possibly drugged) attacker. Police considered .38 caliber rounds to have enough stopping power. Most Navy SEALs are comfortable with 9mm rounds. However, if you hit someone within ten feet with a larger .45 caliber round it will stop them even if they are rushing you. Not everyone has the courage to wait until the attacker gets within ten feet so they fire at greater distances and sometimes miss. This is why it's important to always practice with two successive rounds (referred to as double-tap).2

Concerns about a revolver's 5-6 rounds? For self defense, the interaction is over within seconds. Unlike the movies, there are no prolonged shoot-outs in home incidents.

Tips:

1) Some recommend shooting to kill so that a wounded assailant can't later file suit against you, or worse, come back later and, out of revenge, ambush you because they lost the use of a leg or hand or whatever. However, you can't shoot them and then, while they are wounded on the floor, shoot them again to kill them; that would be murder.

2) Many knowledgeable shooters will advocate a double-tap. Shoot two rounds (the first might not hit or stop them).

3) Although it's not recommended, because of child safety reasons, you can keep the revolver loaded so that you can just pick it up, release the safety and fire it just by pulling the trigger, even one handed. For long term storage a thin coat of oil on the brass of each round before you insert them into the revolver's stainless steel cylinder will minimize corrosion.

4) I recommend that you shop several stores to test for a comfortable pistol grip. It's important that the grip is comfortable for your hand, many are not; there is a pistol that will feel comfortable for you. Once you find a used one that fits nicely you could then buy a new one on-line, however, used pistols are perfectly fine for self defense.

5) Here's a video that shows the stopping power of various caliber rounds.

Here's a nice tip for beginners: Weapons Training—Starting from Mastery

Last edited 12/3/17
xx Psychiatrists and Kim Jong Un
July 04, 2017, 01:45:04 AM by Kerry
I'm waiting to hear that the 33* psychiatrists who submitted their observations of President Trump to the NY Times, have composed another letter—to acknowledge the predictable dangers of the Kim Jong Un — President Trump relationship.

Premise: If your child suddenly started threatening to kill his sister you would, after trying every therapy possible, have no choice other than to place him/her in a special home. That is to say, when someone threatens us we do what it takes to restore serenity. I think it's safe to say that at least 50% of the world feels threatened by President Trump's communications.

A few thoughts that concern me:

Most people agree that an absolute dictator is both narcissistic and plagued with paranoia. Media reports that Kim Jong Un, unarguably the world's most successful absolute dictator (in terms of getting his subjects to behave as he wishes**), truly believes that the U.S. is planning to invade North Korea, ergo, his drive for nuclear missiles—ostensibly for defense, or, for what could possibly be self-annihilation of North Korea.

I'm wanting the media to report that the present hype about the immediate danger of Kim Jong Un firing an intercontinental missile at the U.S. is ludicrous. At best, in a few years, No Korea could manufacture several dozen nukes, however, Kim Jong Un knows, with absolute certainty, that within seconds of any "crazy suicidal attack," that it would be the end of North Korea as we know it.   i.e. 24 nukes from N Korea to the US vs as many as it would take to completely destroy N Korea—all missiles from both sides enroute within minutes of him pressing "the" button.

The above thoughts prompt us to insist upon world support for concerted intervention. The reason? The pressures of being a dictator eventually lead to increasingly more aberrant behavior and a purposeful death from the hands of others (I'm unaware of any dictator dying peacefully while sleeping). Can we risk the possibility, however remote, that Kim Jong Un is, (albeit unconsciously) intent on suicide*** and that he has had fleeting thoughts of sacrificing his country, as a martyr, so as to turn the world against the country who destroyed No Korea?

It is possible to design and deliver questions to Kim Jong Un that would facilitate mutually satisfying communication. If he read specific questions, and had to think about the answers, it would effect a transformation about that specific topic (whether he replied of not). Like President Trump a narcissist cannot resist reading about him/herself.

* Another "Petition" has so far garnered more than 41,000 signatures. It states: “We, the undersigned mental health professionals (please state your degree), believe in our professional judgment that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. And we respectfully request he be removed from office, according to article 4 of the 25th amendment to the Constitution,. . ."

** Everyone knows the correct way to applause their Leader, hands raised high so that he can see that you are supporting what he's saying. Everyone has the responsibility to report anyone who appears to be less than enthusiastic, else, they to will require re-education.

*** Picture Kim Jong Un in prison. Would he dare diss a fellow inmate? Would he dare threaten anyone knowing that he would definitely be murdered. Suicidal prisoners often diss another prisoner which then causes the the dissed to kill the disser, which then causes the killer to be punished. Kim Jong Un's posturing with a weapon is not the behavior of a normal well adjusted person intent on harmony. I predict that it's just a matter of time before he and President Trump involve our countries in war (last edited 1/8/18).

Kerrith H. (Kerry) King
Leadership-Relationship Communication-Skills Coach
xx Yes/No: Trump will eventually create a war
June 28, 2017, 11:18:38 PM by Kerry
President Trump mirrors our addiction to abusing and to being abused. He has absolutely no choice other than to mirror our leadership-communication skills—like a spouse abuse "victim" our communications goad him into communicating in a way that doesn't feel good. There are no spouse abuse "victims," only co-conspiring partners stuck in blame, both blaming the other for starting the fights.

Like ourselves, President Trump has mastered what's referred to as the Adversarial Communication Model. The adversarial communication model is characterised by exaggerating (lying), fault-finding, blaming, make-wrong, threatening, boasting and divisiveness.

Premise: If President Trump keeps communicating as he has been we will end up declaring a new war or greatly escalating an existing conflict.

Please cast your vote: Yes or No?

Yes, I think so.
No, I don't think so.

Last edited 8/24/17
[1] 2 3 ... 7
Powered by SMFBlog by CreateAForum.com