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

1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
xx Leadership Training: must-read for teachers
May 17, 2017, 10:40:02 PM by Kerry
Someone stuck in the process of becoming a leader will vote non-verbally to have incompetent fellow teachers.1

If you are a teacher or a principal and know of a teacher who is performing poorly, then you would serve your school by arranging for a [free] weekend-long Leadership-Training2 for your school's personnel (principal, admin, kitchen personnel, custodians, and teachers).

A leader communicates effectively and as such ensures that students are in-communication with each of their teachers. I for one never experienced being in-communication with any teacher (K-12, eight different schools). There are millions and millions of high school grads like myself, who, when asked to name a truly inspiring teacher, often only come up with one name.3

1 "incompetent" Approximately 25% of our nation's college freshmen require remedial reading and comprehension classes to learn what their teachers failed to teach; the list of reasons for these results never address the truth—a failure to communicate. 

2 I'm unaware of any college or university that includes Leadership Training as a requirement for education and health care majors.

3 One good test for incompetency is to hand out an evaluation form asking students to name their most favorite teacher(s) and their least favorite teacher(s)s (no signature required). Even more effective is a list of the names of the teachers with a 1-10 ranking alongside each name.

Last edited 9/29/17
xx Consideration about self-driving cars and accidents
May 08, 2017, 12:33:24 AM by Kerry
If a self-driving car hits something/someone, who pays?  Clearly it would be my responsibility but wouldn't it be the car's fault? It seems as though the insurance company should sue the car's manufacture.

I believe the person in the driver's seat should be held financially liable for any accidents. Eventually insurance premiums will be extremely high for self-driving vehicles.

Post your considerations.

Last edited 10/27/17

Note: Although the various computers on NASA's Cassini (Saturn) aircraft were remarkably responsive to being controlled from earth I have not found my last three computers (which I custom built from ordered parts) to be reliable enough that I would let one drive me. For certain Saturn's  components are higher than military grade and the software has been tested zillions of times before sending it into space.
xx Topics for student research
April 14, 2017, 03:28:02 AM by Kerry
These research topics are ideal for education and speech-communication majors.


Premise: Withholders attract withholders.*

Overview: Both divorced partners withheld one or more significant** thoughts from their eventual marriage partner on the very first date. The thought withheld was believed to be a deal-breaker. This deceit contributed to all breakdowns in communication, negatively affecting all outcomes throughout the marriage.***

Research: Interview divorced individuals asking— "Recall something significant you withheld from your ex on your first date?" My own research has proven that all divorcees withheld something significant on their very first date.

* A withhold is any significant thought withheld from a significant person for a reason. i.e. Thoughts withheld (major/minor deceits) serve as barriers to the experience of love. A thought withheld from a loved one is abusive, it dooms them to a life with few or no moments of joy. When you bring your addiction to witholding into a new relationship you automatically, non-verbally, grant your date permission to withhold their thoughts of choice from you. A person of integrity simply doesn't attract a withholder.

** Significant: A thought is considered significant if verbalizing it would cause upset or anger. The word "verbalizing" keeps to the front of the mind that withholds are always being communicated non-verbally. The other doesn't know what's in the space only that something's missing, something's wrong; this ain't love.

*** Examples of thoughts withheld:
  • You were dating another who believed they had an exclusive relationship with you.
  • You withheld that you caused physical abuse in a prior relationship.
  • You withheld a physical/medical condition such herpes or an addiction.
  • You withheld the fact that your family is dysfunctional (that your parents are addicted to verbal/physical abuse).
  • You caused cheating in another relationship. Your integrity is such that you didn't/don't inspire integrity.
  • You deceived an employer on a job application form.
  • While on your first date you withheld a judgement about your date trash-talking/blaming another.
  • You committed a perpetration for which you have not been acknowledged (cheating, stealing, abuse, lying)
  • You lied about your cause for the failure of a prior relationship; "He was ..." "She wouldn't ..."
  • You non-verbally supported your date in lying—blaming their ex about a prior relationship.
  • Your date was late and you didn't have them acknowledge the perpetration (the broken agreement).
  • You caused your date to think less of a prior partner; you're addicted to badmouthing and blaming.
  • You didn't share your thoughts about having a Fidelity Agreement in your wedding vow.
  • You consciously chose to not talk about a prenuptial agreement—for fear of . . .
  • You withheld specific thoughts (expectations) about sex. (Will/won't—for reasons)
  • You deceived a parent about a date.
  • You conned another into deceiving both sets of parents so as to have sex.
If you are married and have one or more withholds with your partner you can restore your integrity by doing The Clearing Process. Then invite you partner to do it—after which you both can do The Clearing Process for Couples. Keep in mind, if you are withholding a significant thought from someone, they too are withholding one from you; there are no exceptions to this phenomenon.

It's unethical to drag around a withhold in a marriage, it's abusive, it dooms your partner to a life with little or no joy (laughter possibly, joy, no.).


Premise: Education majors require leadership training

Overview: Teachers are failing to communicate subject matter. Principals are graduating students who can't ...  Over the past four decades, nationwide, more and more incoming university and college freshman require remedial comprehension and composition courses.  Instead of teaching education majors to communicate subject matter, universities, to survive financially, have lowered the entrance standards.

Research: Beginning with the University of Hawaii gather statistics to show the number of incoming freshmen students that have required remedial courses, each year over the past four 40 years. Include the number of those freshman who eventually graduated.

Overview: The Speech-Communication curriculum for education majors includes classes, courses, seminars, programs, honor courses and advanced studies, however no leadership training. The most junior military personnel (privates, corporals, seamen, and airmen) have had more leadership training than most teachers. Even teachers with some leadership training non-verbally support the retention of fellow teachers whom they know to be ineffective.

Last edited 8/24/17
xx United passenger abuse
April 11, 2017, 01:16:19 AM by Kerry
What I've seen/heard is that a passenger was forceably removed from a United Airlines flight.

I'm not hearing answers/explanations for my considerations.

My frame of reference is that 40 years ago I used to do lots of flying to and from military bases, for leaves, vacations, etc. I would sign up for standby and sit intending no-shows. Once my name had been called and my ticket accepted I was locked in, even if a no-show suddenly appeared. If a no-show appeared after I was accepted the tardy customer would then go to top of the remaining standby list but I would never be removed.

Here's another confusion about the way the incident has been reported:
I'm still not clear whether the passenger was first "asked" if he would be willing to...

The reportage suggests that the security officer pretended to "ask," but infact he was commanding the passenger, "Sir, come with me." What was also being communicated non-verbally is: "You have no choice. Come now; if you don't come you will be forceably  removed!"  The passenger picked up on the premeditated physical abuse of the officer and had no choice other than to resist being abused. In other words, it appears that the officer deceived the passenger into thinking he had a choice, when in fact he had no choice other than to comply. If this be the case, the alleged "ask" was in truth a command.

For example: When I ask someone for anything I must intend a yes (and, be prepared, create space for, a no), else, I am manipulating the person for the answer I want; they do not have a clear choice. Many divorced men eventually discover the effects of conning their spouse-to-be when they first met, because, if the woman had been conscious she would never have walked across the floor to ask him for a dance. She had no experience of having chosen him, ergo. the resentment of being party to a co-created-con had been stored until negotiating/controlling the divorce conditions.

Last edited: 8/24/17 
xx Communicating with President Trump—an intention
March 07, 2017, 01:21:46 AM by Kerry
Communicating with President Trump—an intention

To experience the experience of being in mutually satisfying communication with President Trump, as with anyone else, requires intention; specifically, conscious intention. Unconscious intentions produce what we've been experiencing.

So far we have been unconsciously intending that the president (via his tweets) dump thoughts into our space, thoughts that leave us wondering, confused or upset.

Given our present leadership-communication skills I don't have any reality that either of us (you the reader or myself) could get into communication with President Trump; it's particularly embarrassing for me given my profession as a Leadership-Relationship Communication-Skills Coach).

Presently there is no system in place for us to responsibly ask for, and get, clarifications. As we've noticed from our reactions, via the media, it's altogether too easy to blame the president for this less-than mutually-satisfying way of interacting. It's the same with spousal abuse; the alleged "victim" usually blames their partner, oblivious as to his/her cause.  Through coaching all "victims" can recall the fork in the road, the specific interaction, that non-verbally granted their partner permission to continue abusing.1 History refers to citizens who vote non-verbally as the "good Germans."

I post here now because more often than not I'm noticing that I'm incomplete with much of what the president says; even more so because I/we haven't been effective in creating a two-way communication channel, between the president and us, that works for all concerned. Using coaching jargon, "tweets" are referred to as dumps. A dump is when one talks but doesn't provide (ensure) feedback—that is to say, we don't have a way of asking the president for clarification about any specific tweet; the media continues to be ineffective at eliciting an acknowledgment from the president for each confusing/divisive tweet. Too many times we see interviewers not asking the questions we'd ask, or, not insisting that the president answer a question, which rewards and trains him to manipulate us in a way that doesn't feel good.
Addressing the above, I'd like you, the reader, to intend that President Trump accepts our2 invitation to participate in a free 3-hour televised communication consultation.3 I'm certain that after the consultation viewers everywhere will have an expanded experience of open, honest, and spontaneous communication with the president.

As the facilitator-coach of the consultation with the president I will address what's in the space, the incompletes and confusions, between us. As with all coaching conversations my agreement, as the facilitator, is to not blame or make the participant wrong or communicate in a way that is abusive. In other words, for the president to agree to a consultation he must have our assurance that the consult will be a safe space to tell the truth.4

The consultation with the president is guaranteed to produce positive outcomes. Why? Because it's virtually impossible to participate in such an educational process, about leadership, communication, and mutually satisfying results, and have it not work (at least a little bit). The word “participate” is a reminder that TV viewers will also be experiencing the consultation, experiencing the experience of communication; it will impact all concerned. The exchange will generate new conversations and intentions that will support clarity.

Part of what will be addressed during the consultation between President Trump and myself is setting up a communication channel that supports certainty and completion.

Note: Could it be that President Trump is the leader we've been looking for? It's tempting to blame him because I/we haven't found an effective way of communicating with him. Universities model and teach the Adversarial Communication Model to its education majors—so, what we've learned is how to badmouth and blame our leaders, unawares of the karma of such abuse.  President Trump presently has no choice other than to mirror our integrity. We all simply resist having to play too honest, too responsible. For the president to be honest with us we must begin by being honest within our personal relationships (—zero significant withholds).

It's up to us to learn how to deliver feedback in a way that is both valued and appreciated. Support the Communicating with President Trump—an intention project.

1 Both partners must agree up-front to verbally acknowledge to the other when an interaction doesn't feel good. i.e. "I need you to tell me that you know that that didn't feel good." The partner who doesn't insist upon an abuse being acknowledged, becomes cause for all the abuse that follows.

2 "our" You and I and others. Of the est. 318 million Americans how many votes in favor of the consultation do you think it would take for President Trump to accept our invitation?

3 Our task is to intend that the President accepts our invitation for a consultation, otherwise, i believe the president will create a way of ending his presidency early [quit, relieved, impeached, or assassinated].

4 A consultation is not about getting someone to admit fault, it's not about extracting what we want to hear. It's about creating a safe space for mutually satisfying communications to take place.

Last edited 3/12/17

Reference #1
Reference #2
Reference #3
Other clients
Support Groups
About Us
Workshop Critiques

xx Mokita: Truths everyone knows that no one talks about.
February 18, 2017, 08:48:56 PM by Kerry
I recently discovered the word mokita—a truth everyone knows that no one talks about. I love the word because it validates my experience of the hypocrisies I/we accept. It helps explain how we drive teens to drugs, causing them to think there's something wrong with them. We ignore the fact that certain hypocrisies, say by, parents, teachers, politicians and the police, affect ones moral compass.
  • All police chiefs, and his/her fellow officers, know that within their organization are unethical officers including those who are cheating on their spouse; rare is a chief who effectively inspires/insists upon spousal fidelity as a condition of employment. Few have a direct experience of the correlation between integrity and outcomes, yet all understand that a community has no choice other than to mirror the integrity of its law enforcement personnel.
  • The majority of high school principals choose to grant diplomas to students they know cannot compute the best prices in a grocery store, the costs of having and raising a child though age 18, how to complete a basic 1040 IRS form, or how to comprehend "Some assembly required" instructions, and students who don't have a direct experience of how personal integrity affects all outcomes.
  • All teachers nationwide teach the majority of their students how to eventually teach their children to deceive them; evidenced by the fact that the majority of teens con each other into deceiving both sets of parents so as to have sex.
  • The majority of parolees have not been acknowledged for the crimes/perpetrations they committed prior to being convicted, ergo, more than 50% end up back in jail—such is their unconscious need to be acknowledged for all of life's perpetrations. A con cannot respect anyone (especially a parole board member) whom they can con.
  • All parole board members have one or more perpetrations for which they have not been acknowledged; they drag these withholds and incompletes into all interactions—as such, they cannot always experience a lie or a con's con.
  • All divorced couples withheld a significant thought from their partner on the first date, thereby becoming cause for the deceptions (breakdowns in communication) leading to the divorce. The thought withheld has yet to be verbally acknowledged to their partner.
  • All students who are failing are not in-communication with anyone; they are surrounded by adults who have become stuck doing their imitation of communication.
  • All veterans who have elicited a diagnoses of PTSD have one or more significant thoughts they are hiding (withholding) from one or more significant others. "significant" meaning that if the thought were communicated verbally (as opposed to continuing to communicating it non-verbally) it would cause upset or anger or an undesirable consequence; virtually none have acknowledged their cause for the "incident."
  • All spousal abuse is equally co-created. The partner who didn't insist that the other verbally acknowledge the very first abusive communication ("I need to hear you say that you know that what you just said/did didn't feel good.") became cause (non-verbally set up their partner) for all successive abuses; there are no victims in spousal abuse only co-conspirators each blaming the other.
  • Most religious organizations send money to other countries knowing that there are hungry people within their own community (a significant percent of tithings are from parishioners accepting some form of welfare). Clerics and parishioners alike ignore the fact that if their teachings worked it would work for their entire community (9/18/17: 1 in 5 Utah families can't afford enough food).
  • Recently many people want to remove statues of former Confederate leaders (Gen. Robert E. Lee and Lt. Gen. Stonewall Jackson) who racistly bought/owned/sold slaves. In present-day Russia statues of Lenin and Stalin are being removed because they invaded and killed others in the name of expansion and uniting; if one supports this reasoning then shouldn't the statue of King Kamehameha, located in Hilo, Hawaii, be removed because he raided and slaughtered thousands of outer-islanders—all in the name of uniting the islands?
  • The vast majority of teens do not have even one person with whom they are in open, honest and spontaneous communication (they are hiding one or more significant thoughts from everyone they know). All adults can remember that as a teen they carried deceits into each and every interaction with others, for fear of . . . yet few parents use any version of the Clearing Process for a Parent and a Young Person/Teen.

More to come

Last edited 9/22/17
xx Trump thoughts
January 25, 2017, 10:57:56 PM by Kerry
Trump supports communication mastery. We have him in our life to teach us how to communicate effectively. He is demonstrating what happens when we, all of us who communicate our upsets and incompletes non-verbally, from the couch; history refers to this way of leading as being the "good Germans."

The term for what we are putting up with (unconsciously intending) is referred to as enabling. Our silence condones* his unique way of interacting.

All persistent abuse in a relationship was caused by the partner who didn't insist upon a verbal acknowledgement after the very first communication that didn't feel good. i.e. "I need you to tell me that you know that that didn't feel good." And, after each and every abusive communication.

1/25/17 Re: Trump's appointment of the new CIA Director and media reports about granting the CIA para military capabilities.

If I knew that all law enforcement agencies* were absolutely committed to spousal fidelity, I'd consider granting the CIA such power. Presently, each leader of these agencies support spousal deceit. It's not just that each agency has members who are presently deceiving their spouses, it's that all others within their law enforcement communities knowingly, consciously, support the infidelities; they simply don't inspire each other to operate with integrity.

They all have an understanding about the correlation between personal integrity and outcomes, it's just that they*** have not experienced it directly; ergo, they don't make any connection between mistakes, accidents, failed goals and missions (i.e. security of the nation) and the integrity of each member.

For example; Members of Naval Special Warfare (Navy SEALs) operate at such a level of integrity that each member (including their spouses and all family members) know that they can't afford the consequences (the karma) of personal integrities.  Cheating on taxes or not paying bills on time is simply unthinkable; all abuses between spouses are continually verbally acknowledged and completed.

*  Condones — definition:   accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
    "the college cannot condone any behavior that involves illicit drugs"
    synonyms:   disregard, accept, allow, let pass, turn a blind eye to, overlook, forget; More
    forgive, pardon, excuse, let go
    "we cannot condone such dreadful behavior"
    antonyms:   condemn
        approve or sanction (something), especially with reluctance.
        "the practice is not officially condoned by any airline"

** Here in Hawaii most agree that we have a comparatively honest law enforcement system, however, it's a given that a significant percentage of our local law enforcement personnel are involved in one or more deceptions—such as spousal infidelities, incorrect mileage reports, late and incomplete reports. It's not just that some law enforcement personnel are out-integrity, it's that they all are, because, each fellow employee (ostensibly the "good" ones) condone (and thereby causes) these perpetrations non-verbally for fear of . . .

***  David Petraeus, a former Director of the CIA, was was cheating on his wife both as the Director of the CIA and earlier as a four star general commanding U.S. Forces in Afghanistan—and now, 2/15/17, is among those President Trump is considering for the position of Secretary of State.

Last edited 3/4/17
xx President Trump supports re-examing our definitions of abuse
January 24, 2017, 12:08:23 AM by Kerry
This post is about defining/adding to our definition of the word abuse.

Over the generations we have been refining our definition of abuse. Within memory of most seniors teachers were allowed to hit students with a switch/ruler; one of mine sprinkeld pepper on my tongue for chewing gum. More recently child and relationship healthcare professionals are addressing yelling and spanking and its affects. Daily we are experiencing communications from President Trump that prompt us to examine our definitions of the word abuse; specifically, the validity of our experience. Does it, did it, feel good? We each have our own "definitions" of the words responsibility and abuse.

For forty plus years, as a leadership-relationship communication-skills coach, I have been adding to the existing definition of the word abuse. Here's what I've come up with so far; excerpted from The [free] Spouse Abuse Tutorial. Please post your thoughts.
Begin Definition:

Abuse: 1) Any interaction, any communication (verbal, non-verbal, physical, or psychic), that detracts from the aliveness, well-being, or serenity of another. 2) A way of acting, to include silence, withholding the truth or parts of it, avoiding (not answering/misdirecting) a question, frowning, pouting, smirking, stink-eye, rolling-eyes, thwarting, insulting, swearing, putting down, invalidating, condescending, raised voice, frightening, upsetting, shocking, yelling, screaming, jabbing, pushing, shoving, jerking, grabbing, yanking, pulling another's arm in upset, spanking, slapping, bringing to ones senses with a loving firm slap, hitting, punching, or kicking.

Equally important: It is abusive to create space for the above. You have an effect on others; you communicate and produce results merely by standing silently in a crowded room. "For every action [or inaction] there is an equal and opposite reaction." Just because one is unaware of how they produced a result doesn't mean they didn't cause it.

End Definition:

Note: This definition is based upon what we experience when another's communication doesn't feel good. No matter what I think, a valid test for abuse is, "How did that feel?" It's understoof that in the middle of a significant communication it often doesn't feel good; what's important is that both partners are committed to mutual satisfaction upon completion.

Most of us have no choice other than to abuse when we are abusing or being abused. What we do have is a choice to observe ourself having created abuse and to verbally (responsibly) acknowledge each abusive communication soonest.

It's not that one is abusive to another, we've been programmed to hide upsets, thoughts, and considerations until we explode at someone; what compounds the effects of any abuse, what trains a child to later abuse his/her own children, is that his/her parents failed to verbally acknowledge each and every instance of abuse to each other in front of their child.

For example:
Spouse to partner or child: "I get that my yelling at you earlier today didn't feel good; I know it was abusive." Notice that the acknowledgment doesn't explain, justify or apologize for the abuse—simply acknowledging each and every instance of abuse eventually puts one in choice, to abuse or not. A responsible acknowledgment creates introspection as to its source such as recalling and relating the earliest similar abuse (the day date location etc.). Something about that first incident is incompelte. Communication completes an incomplete so that one is not at effect of what used to trigger the upset.

Please help define abuse by posting your suggestions as a Reply here. (free registration required)

Last edited 2/13/17
xx Trump's treatment of fellow deal makers?
November 01, 2016, 10:47:30 AM by Kerry
I've yet to read anything about how those that have made deals with Trump feel after the deal. Watching how abusive he is with anyone he considers an adversary, it looks to me that his abuse is an addiction, that he can't control his knee-jerk inaccurate insensitive reactions in extemporaneous situations, as with say, a world leader.

A friend of mine was an excellent businessman, an unassuming wheeler and dealer. He too was addicted to abuse. His reputation was that of always getting the slightly better deal; it looked fair and sounded fair but there was always a distaste, as though something about it wasn't fair. I suspect Trump's peers feel the same way about him.

I'm sure that that Trump, if elected, would cause a huge increase in our country's debt and that many countries would not feel good in their dealings with him.

Last edited 1/9/18
xx The health of our healthcare professionals?
October 11, 2016, 12:30:23 AM by Kerry
Thoughts about the health of our healthcare professionals?

The majority of our nation's healthcare professionals and their patients are overweight—all dragging around 10-20 lbs of energy-sapping extra weight.

Premise: The way to keep another stuck is to hypocritically offer them counsel and advice that hasn't consistently worked for you or your own family.
    One of the things I respect and admire about Dr. Magg (Hilo Veterans Clinic) is that he walks the talk; his counsel comes from knowing (he even coaches his son's baseball team). His own health, body weight, energy and aliveness is exemplary. I've never heard him badmouth the VA or anyone; his behavior is consistent with his purpose—to support health.
I have considerations about any organization, especially ones with the mission of supporting mental and physical well-being, in which the person being paid to be the leader has yet to develop the leadership-communication skills it takes to inspire healthy choices, beginning within his/her own profession.

What we "clients-patients" see throughout most of the healthcare community is a large number of overweight nurses, receptionists, and office staff. An overweight receptionist does not inspire health; it reveals that the integrity of the boss is out (subordinates always mirror the integrity of their leader) and, that the person assigned* to be the "office manager" is in fact stuck somewhere in the process-of-becoming-a-manager; he/she has yet to know (from direct experience) the correlation between personal integrity and results.** 

An overweight healthcare professional knows a lot about health and understands the correlation between personal integrity and outcomes for themselves and all with whom they relate; however, their understanding serves as a barrier to knowing.  i.e. A Navy SEAL's spouse keeps her agreements and supports spousal fidelity throughout the Navel Special Warfare community in support of favorable outcomes for everyone; whereas, all healthcare professionals know of at least one person in their organization who is involved in one or more deceptions—these ostensibly "good" people non-verbally enable the deception and it's consequences—oblivious of the correlation between personal integrity and results (such as healing).

* "assigned" meaning—that an office "manager" knows how to manage and meet goals whereas someone in the "process-of-becoming" a manager tries and keeps others stuck.

** "direct experience" A late patient or a "No show" is thought to be the irresponsible patient's fault (or the way things are) rather than it being a consequence or reminder that the receptionist left home that morning having verbally abused their spouse without acknowledging the abuse, without cleaning it up (list of integrity variables that affect outcomes). 

Note 1: It is unethical to receive money for acting as a manager and making one's own financial survival more important than doing what to takes to inspire a subordinate's health. Leadership requires impeccable integrity. i.e. Honor time and financial agreements, zero gossip and badmouthing, keep personal relationships clean. 

Note 2: I'm unaware of any VA clinic staff member that begins each appointment with an In-Processing Integrity Clearing. For example: "What thought comes to mind when you think of what your ailment might be about?" Or, "Let's assume that your pain is a consequence of an incomplete; for what would you like to be acknowledged?" Virtually all veterans with PTSD have one or more significant thoughts they are withholding from a significant person; there are no exceptions to this phenomenon. Put another way, a vet isn't addressing the source of an ailment if they are dragging around an unacknowledged perpetration they have hidden from a significant person—to include acknowledging all of life's perpetrations (first lie, first deception, first temper tantrum, first theft, first fight, first blame).

Last edited 11/22/17
1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
Powered by SMFBlog by