giovedì 31 marzo 2011

Stop the Drama and Do the Work (At the Whiteboard)

Purpose: To promote the life script.
The roles of Persecutor, Rescuer and Victim are portrayed in psychological games.
Serves as a training ground for powerlessness.
Prevents psychological equality in relationships.

Will go on as long as someone is willing to be victimized.

Think if you will about a triangle. On each end are roles that we play in life. One is the persecutor, another is the victim and the last is the rescuer.

**If anyone in this triangle changes roles, the other two roles change as well.

PERSECUTOR - "It's All Your Fault"

  • Sets strict limits unnecessarily.
  • Blames
  • Criticizes
  • Keeps Victim oppressed
  • Is mobilized by anger
  • Rigid, authoritative stance
  • "Critical" Parent


VICTIM - "Poor Me"

  • Feels victimized, oppressed, helpless, hopeless, powerless, ashamed
  • Looks for a Rescuer that will perpetuate their negative feelings.
  • If stays in Victim position, will block self from making decisions, solving problems, pleasure and self-understanding.
  • "Dejected" stance.


RESCUER - "Let Me Help You"

  • Rescues when really doesn't want to.
  • Feels guilty if doesn't rescue.
  • Keeps victim dependent.
  • Gives permission to fail.
  • Expects to fail in rescue attempts.
  • "Marshmallow" Parent


Read more at MH Today 


And now Edward G. Muzio explains how the "triangle" works in this exemple on whiteboard.


Everyone as best as he can!
Have Joy!

mercoledì 30 marzo 2011

Trasformate i vostri rivali in alleati (Harvard Business Review Italia)

Quando gli obiettivi e le priorità di un collega risultano essere apparentemente l'opposto delle vostre, è facile che sopraggiunga la tentazione di demonizzarlo. Sviluppare una valutazione negativa di altre persone è la risposta comune ad una situazione conflittuale, ma è un comportamento che non risulta particolarmente produttivo ed intelligente.
In realtà, così facendo, si compromette la capacità di esercitare la vostra influenza. Provate a conoscerlo meglio. Sedetevi e provate a parlare di ciò che gli interessa e di cui si occupa.
In questo modo, potreste scoprire che l'origine del vostro conflitto è in realtà un'area di interesse comune. E così da nemici, potreste diventare naturali alleati.

martedì 29 marzo 2011

12 Critical Things You Should Never Tolerate (by Barrie Davenport)

This post by Barrie Davenport (PickTheBrain) is useful to understand our own limits about what we can deal and tolerate.
12-tips-12 to start a new way of life, a new challenge, a new possibility...

Everyone as best as he can!
Have Joy

There is so much in life that we just tolerate. Some of it we have to deal with (taxes, bad weather, traffic). But there’s a good portion of stuff that we tolerate even when we don’t have to. We step around things, overlook irritations, and mindlessly accept energy drains. Perhaps we’ve become so immune to these tolerations that we don’t recognize the negative impact they have on us.

Sometimes just recognizing the things we are tolerating in life gives us a renewed sense of hope and energy. If you don’t know what’s pulling you down, it feels impossible to make your life better. Even small changes and shifts with these life tolerations can result in dramatic improvement in your outlook and mood.

However, when you address some of your bigger tolerations, you can completely change the course of your life and open doors to a world of happiness and inner peace that you didn’t know existed.

Think about the poorest of the poor, living in squalor and despair without the hope of a better future. When they are lucky enough to see the connection between education and life success, they have found a portal to escape poverty and misery. It’s a huge shift.

In the same way, we must search for these portals that will allow us to move to the next level of powerful living. Our tolerations are the brambles and vines growing over the portal doorway. We must clear them away to be able to open the door and walk through.

Do you want to walk through the portal to a happier life? If so, here are 12 situations that you should never tolerate if you want to live joyfully. See if you recognize yourself in any of these tolerations. If so, now is the time to clear them away.

1. Unhappiness at work.
You spend nearly half of your life at your job. If you are unhappy, do you really want to give away that much of your life? Think of the impact it has on your emotional well-being, your health, and your relationships. Think of the opportunities missed for doing something that you love, that is fulfilling. Don’t settle for living this way forever. Find a job that you love. Get more education if necessary. At the least, make changes within your current job to lessen your unhappiness.

2. A Long Commute.
A long commute to work by car or public transportation is stressful and empty. Hours in a vehicle adds up to days, months, years wasted in traveling when you could be doing and living. Find a job closer to home, or move closer to your job. Whatever your reason is for this commute, is it really worth the lost time?

3. An Unhealthy Lifestyle.
Are you overweight? Do you smoke? Are you sedentary? Do you eat junk? Do you abuse alcohol or other substances? An unhealthy lifestyle leads to an unhappy life. If you feel bad and look bad, you can’t enjoy life. This is your one and only life, and your body is your sacred garment. Take care of it now.

4. Draining Relationships.
If there are people in your life who are abusive, demeaning, angry, hurtful, not supportive, unethical, or crazy, it is time to let them go. You may have your reasons for hanging on, but do these reasons really outweigh the negative impact they have on your life? At the very least, find ways to cut back on interactions with these people.

5. A Disordered Living Space.
How you live is a reflection of who you are. You don’t need to live in a mansion with lots of stuff, but your living space should reflect the joy, order, and peace you want in your life. It should be clean, orderly, and have some expressions of beauty and warmth. It should feel welcoming to you and to guests in your home.

6. Negativity.
It is around us all the time, invading our minds like termites. We hear and see negative ideas and images on the news. Our friends and associates share their negative stories or reactions to life events. We hear negative lyrics in songs or watch violence and abuse in movies or on TV. Before we know it, we feel negative and depressed about our lives. Turn it off. Walk away. Stop listening. Instead watch, read, and listen to uplifting and positive ideas and information.

7. Too Much Stuff.
Over the years, we accumulate. We like to buy things. We like to have things. But these things require our time, energy, money, and effort. They lose their shine and we lose our interest. They become a burden — something we have to dust rather than enjoy. Get rid of this stuff and free up time and energy in your life.

8. Financial Problems.
The stress and emotional pain caused by financial problems steals your joy and peace in life. Whatever you are doing now or did in the past to cause the problem, do something about it now. Yes, some financial difficulties are unavoidable, but do whatever you can to lessen the stress, even if it means delivering pizzas for a while. If you are over-spending, stop. Sell some things. Very few “things” are worth the stress of money worries.

9. Living Out of Your Integrity.
Are you living in alignment with your values? Are you being true to yourself? Do you need to apologize for something or ask for forgiveness? When you are living outside of your integrity, it causes a disruption in your soul and your psyche. It drains your energy, fosters guilt, and saps your self-esteem. Get right with yourself and with others.

10. Living Without Fun.
If you life is all duty and work (even if the work is enjoyable), you are living out-of-balance. Fun and relaxation are necessary ingredients for a full and joyful life. By removing some of the other stresses from your life, you can make room for pleasurable activities, travel, and entertainment. The world is your beautiful oyster meant to be enjoyed.

11. Accepting Ignorance and Inertia.
We use both of these as excuses not to do something. We talk ourselves into our own inability to accomplish or change because we are afraid. We are afraid it will be hard, we are afraid we might fail, we are afraid it won’t work. You and everyone else knows these are just excuses to avoid. Don’t accept them anymore. Stretch yourself.

12. Lack of Communication.
In every single relationship you have, especially your primary relationship, healthy communication is essential to your life happiness. We you aren’t communicating properly with someone, you feel anxious, angry, frustrated, and helpless. Open, honest, loving communication is the number one ingredient for successful relationships. If you don’t know how to communicate in a healthy way, then learn how to and begin to implement these skills.

Use the next few minutes to think about one area in your life you are just tolerating. How does this toleration impact your sense of well-being and joy? What is one action you could take today to begin to eliminate this toleration? Even a small change can make a huge shift for the better in your life.

Barrie Davenport

lunedì 28 marzo 2011

Noreena Hertz @ TED: Quando dare ascolto agli esperti - e quando non farlo.

Questo di oggi é un inno alla ribellione, un manifesto contro gli "esperti", contro i "guru", contro i "sapienti".
Ti stai chiedendo: "chi lo dice?"
Un'esperta: Noreena Hertz!

Dal sito TED: Ogni giorno ci troviamo di fronte a decisioni importanti, e spesso ci affidiamo ai consigli degli esperti. Ma, ci dice l'economista Noreena Hertz, fare troppo affidamento su di loro può diventare limitante e perfino pericoloso. Il suo appello è quello per una democratizzazione dell'expertise. Non ascoltiamo solamente i chirurghi e i CEO, ma anche il personale di un negozio.

Dice, verso la fine Noreena Hertz: "Le strategie che ho analizzato questa sera: accettare il dissenso, affrontare gli esperti, democratizzare l'expertise, le strategie di ribellione, sono strategie che io credo servirebbe a tutti mettere in pratica mentre tentiamo di affrontare le sfide di questi tempi confusi, complessi e veramente difficili". 

Il mio consiglio?
Investi 18 minuti del tuo tempo per ascoltare i consigli di Noreena e poi investi su te stesso per essere in grado di vivere quei consigli e di usare, ad esempio, le giuste domande.

"Essere pronti a sfidare gli esperti signifca anche avere il desiderio di andare al di là dei loro grafici, delle loro equazioni, delle loro previsioni, delle loro profezie,e armarsi delle domande che ce lo permettono -- domande quali: Su quali basi si fondano queste affermazioni? Su quale evidenza si basa? La sua analisi su quali punti si è concentrata? E quali punti non ha considerato?" Noreena Hertz

Sapere senza fare, serve a poco!

(Clicca su SUBTITLES  e seleziona italiano, se ne hai bisogno)

Ognuno come puó!
Abbi Gioia

venerdì 25 marzo 2011

THE "ALLNESS" BLOWOUT PATTERN (by Michael Hall - Neuro-Semantics)

Alfred Korzybski Series #9 
In creating his 1933 version of "neuro-linguistic training," Alfred Korzybski’s focus was to create a new non-Aristotelian system of language and semantics.  He wanted to shake up the unsanity of the world with this new "Theory of Sanity" based upon a much more sane use of language.  He objected to the primitive language because it did not have the same structure as the territory.  And lacking a similar structure, the language maps things in a way that is deceptive, delusional, and "false to fact."  No wonder then that such language makes it impossible to navigate life and make a good adjustment to things.

In the old Aristotelian language Korzybski most fervently objected to the “Is” of Identity.  The verb “to be” (is, was, am, be, being) causes us to over-generalize with our labels and to identify things that are not the same.  If you create an equivalence between an experience with your label using the deceptively simple to be verb, you treat the word and the experience as if “the same.”   This confuses logical levels.  If you say, "I am a failure," "She is a bitch," "They are stupid," etc. you identify a person with a label.  Whenever you treat "words" as if they have the same kind of reality as things outside your nervous system to which the words refer, you identify things that are not the same.  To that extent, you will think in unsane ways, emote unsanely, and become unsane. 

Korzybski’s "theory of sanity" for the field of therapy rests on the ability to make distinctions.  That is because in actual life, we only deal with unique individuals (whether persons, things, or events).  In the objective world, there is no such thing as "sameness in all respects."  There are only differences.
"Whatever we see, taste, smell, handle, etc. is an absolute individual and unspeakable)" (Science and Sanity, p. 477)

It is differences that allow us to make distinctions and that breaks up “allness.”  Similarly Bateson also focused on the importance of recognizing "the difference that make the difference."  This is true to such an extent that Bateson said that it is difference that gets mapped onto the map structurely.  It is difference which every meta-level and sub-modality distinction enables.

In Science and Sanity, Korzybski made the point that there is no allness.  There is only differences, only uniqueness.  There is only this person, thing, event at this or that time, at this or that place.  This explains the value of indexing person, place, action, subject, etc.  It is only linguistically that we "abstract" from the world and hang labels on people, things, and events.   In this way, we summarize, conclude, integrate, etc. and linguistically create "allness."  By this process we create "categories" (i.e. males, females, sheep, apples, etc.) that helps us to order our understandings and internal worlds. Such labeling only exists as a linguistic distinction.  There are no "males," "females," "sheep," "apples," etc. outside the skin.  You have never, and never will, see a "male."  This kind of label is an abstract concept, mental construct that we use to describe a category.  The label presupposes an "allness" —as if the abstracted characteristic ("maleness") is the same in all particular instances.

No label and word is a thing.  Words and labels refer to ideas (mental phenomena) which only exists in the mind of the meaning-maker.  They are evaluations in the mind of a thinker which leaves particulars out (delete), generalize, and focus on a particular feature which creates distortions.   Even though this is true, most of us treat such words as if they say "all" that needs or can be said.   We typically forget that the label leaves characteristics out and deletes specific information about particulars.   We also forget that we have created a semantic category by generalizing the chief traits.

Korzybski came up with a number of devices to combat this abstracting: the structural differential, "consciousness of abstracting," hyphenating words, indexing words, etc.  And unknown to him, he even came up with an "Allness" Blowout Pattern.  (See Science and Sanity, Chapter 29, 469ff.).  The following pattern is to be done with a group as a way to teach or coach “Non-allness.”


1) Take an object in hand, such as an apple, and hold it up to the group.
Ask everyone to participate in the experience of telling you all about that object.  This works equally well with a class of children or group of adults.
As people make statements or descriptions, write all these characteristics down on a flip chart.  This creates "a visual and extension record of the ascribed characteristics."  This separates the "object" that your neurology (via your sense receptors) experiences which is unspeakable (it is not words) from the words with which you speak to label the object.   This creates a kinesthetic sense distinction of the map-territory; a word is never the object to which it refers.  There is unspeakable reality, then there is speaking-reality, the linguistic expressions of our symbols that we hang onto objects and events.

2) Frustrate your audience with the word "all" and anchor it to a negative emotional state.
When they "have exhausted their ingenuity in telling 'all' about the apple," do not be satisfied.  Communicate your doubt that they have really told "all" about the item.  As you do, keep using the word "all" continually.
"The term 'all' should be stressed and repeated to the point of the children being thoroughly annoyed with the term.  The more they learn to dislike this term, the better.  We are already training a most important semantic reaction." (Ibid. 472)

The strategy is to attach massive emotional pain to the word "all" which will eventually set up a propulsion system that automatically will move them away from the universal quantifier word with the speed of a flying electron.

3) Keep expanding the frame until the participants understand that you can never tell "all."
As you are never satisfied with the answers, always expect and indicate how that there are still more characteristics left out:
"When the subject seems exhausted, and the list of characteristics of the apple 'complete' (we repeatedly make certain that the children assume they have told us 'all' about it), we cut the apple into pieces and show the children experimentally, using eventually a microscope or magnifying glass, that they did not tell us 'all' about the apple" (472).  "Demonstrate practically that an object taken from different points of view has different aspects for different observers." (473)

How many perceptual positions can you think of for expanding the frame?  Engage the object with as many of your nervous functions (auditory, visual, diversified motor nerve centres, etc.). 
Keep shifting perception through the various perceptual positions.  Keep suggesting new and different frames-of-references for dealing with the object.  Expand the frame to the sub-microscopic level suggesting "all" the information they can supply.
Expand the frame to that of the microscopic level where what "exists" and is real are the whirling and dancing of electrons and sub-atomic particles.  Index it to this moment, then the next, then the next asking if "all" has been said.

4) Explain the "abstracting" process. 
"When the children have become thoroughly convinced of the non-allness and the impossibility) of 'allness,' we are ready to explain to them what the word abstracting means, using again the terms 'all' and 'not all.'  We show them a small rotating fan and explain to them about the separate blades which when rotating we see as a disk."
What is seen when you turn on a fan?  A disk!  But when you stop the fan, there is no disk.  There are three or four separate blades.  Where did the disk go?  Where did it come from?  The "disk" is an abstraction of your eyes.  The neurology of your eyes can not "see fast enough" to see the reality, so it abstracts from what was there (deleting, generalizing, distorting) and creates a representation in the mind (the disk), that actually is not there.

5) Show and demonstrate the Structural Differential.  [See Article #2 for a diagram]
To explain the different levels of abstraction, begin with the ongoing event (at microscopic levels) (there are no true objects, only ongoing events) that is ever changing, never the same, and having an indefinite number of characteristics. Then move on to the object which the nervous system has abstracted at the sensory level.  This representation has many "characteristics left out."  Explain that at the neurological level of abstracting, this is where we "experience" the world—as we experienced the fan blades as a disk. 

Then move on to the label which is the first order of linguistic abstraction.  At this level, as an experiencing human, we are saying words about the object presented to our VAK senses.  More abstracting has caused more deleting, generalizing, distorting.  Then show how one can say more words about the first words and create more labels and attribute them to the previous labels inasmuch as you can always say something about whatever you just said (Ibid, 386ff).  

Pattern Explanation
This process elicits several semantic responses by this exercise. It elicits "the semantic processes of 'curiosity,' 'achievement,' 'ambitions,' etc. that he considered vital to a strong healthy mind.   It also creates a kinesthetic awareness at the reflex level about "the characteristics left out."  In this way, a person inherently comes to know and expect that no label or abstraction "tells" all.  His reasoning:
"In life, numerous serious 'hurts' occur precisely because we do not appreciate some natural shortcomings and expect too much.  Expecting too much leads to very harmful semantic shocks, disappointments, suspicions, fears, hopelessness, helplessness, pessimism, etc."

We do this when we want to marry "a wife" (or "husband") and so go out to do that.  Later we discover that there were "characteristics left out" from our awareness of the particular Sue or Bill that we married.  We married our definition or idea ("wife" "husband").  We wedded ourselves to our label and only later discovered the pain that the "allness" of the label can cause.

This "Allness" Blowout Pattern induces an awareness of deletions in both sense-perception and language, both consciously and unconsciously.  It induces a curiosity state about what has been left out and what unuseful generalizations may be operating.  It helps us to appreciate to a much greater degree that the symbols we use are never the referent thing symbolized. The map is not the territory and cannot be the territory.

This pattern prepares people to look at their thinking and language as maps— maps that may, or may not, be useful in navigating experiences through the world.  It works to underscore an appreciation of the different logical levels at work in life (reality/ our neurological experience of that reality/ our linguistic descriptions of our neurological experience, etc.).

Now you can go forth and torture the little minds who are so convinced that they know it "all," that they have spoken or thought the last word about something, or that they have nothing else to learn.  Deframe their unsanity and induce a new appreciation for the marvelously wild and wonderful nature of reality. 

L.  Michael Hall, Ph.D.

giovedì 24 marzo 2011

Non fatevi consumare dal vostro lavoro (Harvard Business Review)

Interessante ed utile post della HBR Italia.
Solitamente si parla di cos´é il burnout ma qui, nel post di HBR, c´é anche una serie di consigli pratici da mettere subito in atto.
Cos´é il burnout?
È una sindrome che consiste nel deterioramento delle emozioni, delle motivazioni e si traduce in logorio fisico e in sfiducia fino all´esaurimento della volontà.
È causato dal sentirsi spossati dal carico emotivo tangibile e psicologico per via delle difficoltà in cui ci si trova e di cui si é testimoni. 
effetto é una diminuita empatia nei confronti delle persone con le quali si condivide il luogo di lavoro.
I sintomi sono: assenteismo, insonnia, apatia, indifferenza, ecc...

Ognuno come puó!
Abbi Gioia

È facile lasciarsi consumare dal proprio lavoro, soprattutto quando si passa la maggior parte delle ore del giorno in ufficio. Ma le persone che parlano solamente del proprio lavoro sono noiose e poco fantasiose. Tre semplici suggerimenti per staccare dal lavoro e creare un equilibrio più ragionevole:

1. Valutate quanto tempo trascorrete a lavoro.
Potrebbe essere necessario dedicare molte ore al giorno, ma assicuratevi di averne bisogno per validi motivi. Non fate tardi per impressionare gli altri o perché non riuscite a gestire bene il vostro tempo.

2. Evitate le perdite di tempo.
Se qualcosa o qualcuno vi sta facendo perdere tempo, liberatevene. Smettete di presenziare alle riunioni inutili e smettetela di visitare siti internet che vi distraggono.

3. Trattate le ore non lavorative come qualcosa di sacro.
Utilizzate il tempo al di fuori del lavoro per il vostro equilibrio psico-fisico. Fatelo non rendendovi accessibili tramite la tecnologia, spegnete il vostro blackberry e cercate veramente di staccare mentalmente.

HBR homepage

mercoledì 23 marzo 2011


"Life is just what happens to you,
While your busy making other plans

(Beautiful boy)

You don't agree, do you?
Do you need an example?
Have a look...

Priceless, isn't it?

Anyone as best as he can!
Have Joy

martedì 22 marzo 2011

What kind of Leader are You? (by Andrew Bryant)

US President, John F. Kennedy, once said, “Leadership and Learning are indespensible to each other”, which sets a frame that an effective leader does not know it all but is open to new information and perspective. Consider the possibility that everything we know today about our world emerged because people were curious. They formulated a question or series of questions about something that sparked their interest or deeply concerned them, which lead them to learn something new. It is my experience in developing leaders that the best leaders ask the best questions.

In October of 1982, Tylenol, the leading pain-killer medicine in the United States at the time, faced a tremendous crisis when seven people in Chicago died after taking extra-strength Tylenol capsules. It was reported that an unknown suspect/s put 65 milligrams of deadly cyanide into Tylenol capsules, 10,000 more than what is necessary to kill a human. Tylenol’s manufacturers Johnson & Johnson was faced with the dilemma of the best way to deal with the problem without destroying the reputation of the company and its most profitable product. Even though the Tylenol product itself was not at fault the Johnson & Johnson leadership asked the question, “What is the most ethical action we might take?” They withdrew Tylenol from shelves and made public announcements warning people about consumption of the product. The company then created the industries first tamper proof container and restored the public’s confidence.

A true leader faces facts, presents a situation fully to all stakeholders, and models accountability. A leader does not attempt to minimize the extent of a problem or promise action faster than can be delivered. A true leader sets appropriate expectations and delivers. He or she does not duck responsibility by shifting the bulk of the blame to someone else.

About a week after the 2010 platform explosion in the Gulf of Mexico BP’s Chief, Tony Hayward, was quoted in the New York Times as asking his executive team, “What the hell did we do to deserve this?” Then he lost all credibility by declaring, “I want my life back.”

Leaders usually believe that they are being paid for fixing problems rather than for fostering breakthrough thinking. Consider these four questions; “What time is it?””Did you take a shower””What possibilities exist that we haven’t thought of yet?””What does it mean to be ethical?” I think you will agree that the last two questions require a different level of thinking than the first two.

A leader’s questions should invite fresh thinking/ feeling. They should be familiar enough to be recognizable and relevant —and different enough to call forward a new response. A leader’s questions should generate hope, imagination, engagement, creative action, and new possibilities -it should not increase focus on past problems and obstacles?

How many leaders today know how to frame strategic questions that open the space for thinking about possibilities rather than solving problems? How many leaders are comfortable with not knowing and can constructively help others bring forth their collective knowledge? Could you be that kind of leader?

Companies are currently facing many problems, not least of which are, “how to restore trust in the leadership and how to engage employees?”

If leadership is getting work done with and through people, whilst gaining their trust and cooperation; is it not time to ask some good questions?

In the words of the wise Lao Tsu, “A leader is best when people barely know he exists. Not so good when people obey him and acclaim him, and worse when they despise him. Fail to honour people and they will fail to honour you. Of a great leader, when his work is done, people will say, we did it ourselves.”

Andrew Bryant

lunedì 21 marzo 2011

BRAIN LEVELS AND WATCHING MOVIES (by Michael Hall - Neuro-Semantics)

Alfred Korzybski Series #8
If you read Korzybski’s Science and Sanity you will find that he not only wrote a lot about the visual representational system, but he valued it as the most important one.  In fact, he made visualization central to the neuro-linguistic training that he did in the 1940s.  He valued the visual system over the auditory and kinesthetic channels and made comments about limiting oneself to the others could possibly infantalize a person.

He also used his “levels of abstraction” to provide a mathematic explanation for translating the processing levels in the brain so that we can translate "dynamic" states into "static" states and vise versa.  And why would we want to do that?  Primarily because there are both brain and representational levels in the movies that we visually represent.  There are levels within those movies— levels processed at different levels and in different ways that creates two kinds of experiences: emotional experiences and mindful-conceptual experiences.

In 1933 neuro-linguistic training focused on distinguishing the levels of abstracting.  The reason is so that we do not confuse different the logical or meta levels.  And one of the ways Korzybski did this was what he called “training in visualization.”
"... experience and analysis show that all forms of identification may be successfully eliminated by training in visualization ...” (p. 423)

What is the mathematical function that we can do in our mental processing via visualization?  Namely, we are able to translate a dynamic experience into a static representation.   And why do that?  So that by analyzing the static representation we can not only feel and experience the story emotionally, but also understand it at a higher level of perception.  And by going in that direction, we can also go in the other direction—and translate a static representation back so that we experience it as dynamic thereby translating what we know into neurology and muscle memory.

Korzybski illustrated all of this by referring to watching a movie.  Normally we experience a moving picture as dynamic and because we do, we experience it as emotionally moving.  We “live through” the visual images as if it was our experience— it induces us into states and emotional experiences.
"When we watch a moving picture representing some life occurrence, our 'emotions' are aroused, we 'live through' the drama; but the details, in the main, are blurred, and a short time after seeing it either we forget it all or in part, or our memory falsifies most effectively what was seen.  It is easy to verify the above experimentally by seeing one picture twice or three times, with an interval of a few days between each seeing.  The picture was 'moving', all was changing, shifting, dynamic, similar to the world and our feelings on the un-speakable levels.  The impressions were vague, shifting, non-lasting, and what was left of it was mostly coloured by the individual mood, etc. while seeing the moving picture.  Naturally, under such conditions, there is little possibility of a rational scientific analysis of a situation.

"But if we stop the moving film which ran, say, thirty minutes, and analyse the static and extensional series of small pictures on the reel, we find that the drama which so stirred our 'emotions' in its moving aspect becomes a series of slightly different static pictures, each difference between the given jerk or grimace being a measurable entity, establishing relations which last indefinitely.”

Here are two ways to view a movie and each way evokes a different state.  When we look at a movie as a whole, we are induced into an emotional state.  When we slow it down and view it as individual pictures, as a series of pictures, the level of our brain is activated that enables us to analyze the movie.
            "The moving picture represents the usually brief processes going on in the lower nerve centres, 'close to life', but unreliable and evading scrutiny.  The arrested static film which lasts indefinitely, giving measurable differences between the recorded jerks and grimaces, obviously allows analysis and gives a good analogy of the working of the higher nerve centres, disclosing also that all life occurrences have many aspects, the selection of which is mostly a problem of our pleasure and of the selection of language.” (p. 292)

Each way of viewing the movie involves a different level of the brain and therefore a different kind of understanding or intelligence.  But it is not an either-or choice.  We need both and we need both for different reasons.
            "The moving pictures gives us the process; each static film of the reel gives us stages of the process in chosen intervals.  In case we want a moving picture of a growing plant, for instance, we photograph it at given intervals and then run it in a moving-picture projector, and then we see the process of growth.  These are empirical facts, and the calculus supplies us with a language of similar structure with many other important consequences."  (p. 292)

In a movie the same “information” is communicated at two levels—separately as a series of static images that are measurable in their differences.  At this level and dimension we can see and appreciate the differences.  Seen in this way we can learn new things that we didn’t see before.  Seen as a movie, we see something else that cannot be seen at the separate static level, we see the gestalt— the overall experience and it moves us.

Similarly the human nervous system has two key parts for differentiating the dynamic and the static.     "The cortex receives its material as elaborated by the thalamus.  The abstractions of the cortex are abstractions from abstractions, and so ought to be called abstractions of higher order.”

Both of these kinds of thinking, the emotional one and the thoughtful or mindful one which enables us to process the same information conceptually, are needed.  The first level of thinking occurs in the lower levels of the brain and generates our emotional thinking which creates a sense of an alive world, always shifting and changing.
"According to our daily experience and scientific knowledge, the outside world is an ever-changing chain of events, a kind of flux; and, naturally, those nerve centres in closest contact with the outside world must react in a shifting way. These reactions are easily moved one way or another, as in our 'emotions', 'affective moods', 'attention', 'concentration', 'evaluation', and other such semantic responses.  In these processes, some associative or relational circuits exist, and there may be some very low kind of 'thinking' on this level. Birds have a well-developed, or, perhaps, over-developed, thalamus but under-developed and poor cortex, which may be connected with their stupidity and excitability.

"Something similar could be said about the 'thalamic thinking' in humans; those individuals who overwork their thalamus and use their cortex too little are 'emotional' and stupid.  This statement is not exaggerated, because there are experimental data to show how through a psycho-neural training the semantic reaction in such cases, can be re-educated, and with the elimination of the semantic disturbances, there is a marked development of poise, balance, and a proportional increase of critical judgement, and so 'intelligence'.

The higher level generates our conceptual thinking:
"When these shifting, dynamic, affective, thalamic-region, lower order abstractions are abstracted again by the higher centres, these new abstractions are further removed from the outside world and must be somehow different.
"In fact, they are different; and one of the most characteristic differences is that they have lost their shifting character.  These new abstractions are relatively static. ... The value is chiefly in the fact that such higher order abstractions represent a perfected kind of memory, which can be recalled exactly in the form as it was originally produced."  (pp. 290-1)

[So in a movie] "... we see a very good representation of life with all its continuity of transitions between joy and sorrow.  If we look at an arrested film we find a definite number of static pictures, each differing from the next by a measurable difference or jump, and the joy or sorrow which moved us so in the play of the actors on the moving film, becomes a static manifold of static pictures each differing measurably from its neighbour by a slightly more or less accentuated grimace.”

A movie in slow motion enables an observer to see processes that are too fast at the normal speed to see and detect.  Today we film things, slow the film down to the slow-motion speed and learn a lot about the dynamics involved in various activities and experiences.
"If we increase the number of pictures in a unit of 'time' by using a faster camera and then release this film at the ordinary speed, we get what is called slow motion pictures ...   In them we notice a much greater smoothness of movements which in life are jerky, as, for instance, the movements of a running horse.  They appear smooth and non-jerky, the horse looks as if it were swimming.”

Next we can slow things down even more for an even more thorough study or modeling.
"The above ... is the best analogy ... of the working of our nervous system and of the difference between orders of abstractions.  Let us imagine that someone wants to study some event as presented by the moving picture camera.  What should he do?  He would first see the picture, in its moving, dynamic form, and later he would arrest the movement and devote himself to the contemplation of the static extensional manifold, or series, of the static pictures of the film.  It should be noticed that the differences between the static pictures are finite, definite and measurable.”

All of this highlights the power of taking any experience and viewing it from multiple perspectives.
"The power of analysis which we humans, possess in our higher order abstractions is due precisely to the fact that they are static and so we can take our 'time' to investigate, analyse, etc.  the lower order abstractions, such as our looking at the moving picture, are shifting and non-permanent and thus evade any serious analysis.  On the level of looking at the moving film, we get a general feeling of the events, with a very imperfect memory of what we have seen, coloured to a large extent by our moods and other 'emotional' or organic states.  We are on the shifting level of lower order abstractions, 'feelings', 'motions', and 'emotions'.  The first lower centres do the best they can in a given case but the value of their results is highly doubtful, as they are not especially reliable. 

So we need both perspectives.  With both the emotional experience and the considerate thoughtful understanding of an experience, different levels of our brain is activated.  And because of the order of the brain levels, from lower to higher, we also need to bring the lower emotional processing up to the higher levels so that we can understand them.  That’s what allows us to take control of them.  Doling that is as Korzybski here said, a “survival mechanism” for us humans.
"Now the higher order abstractions are produced by the higher centres, further removed, and not in direct contact with the world around us.  With the finite velocity of nerve currents it takes 'time' for impulses to reach these centres, as the cortical pathways offer higher neural resistances than the other pathways.  So there has to be a survival mechanism in the production of nervous means for arresting the stream of events and producing static pictures of permanent character, which may allow us to investigate, verify, analyse, etc.  It must be noticed that because of this higher neural resistance of higher centres and the static character of the higher abstractions, these abstractions are less distorted by affective moods.  For, since the higher abstractions persist, if we care to remember them, and the moods vary, we can contemplate the abstractions under different moods and so come to some average outlook on a given problem.  It is true that we  seldom do this, but we may do it, and this is of importance to us." (pp. 578-9)

So in your Movie-Mind —the neuro-linguistic challenge is to welcome and embrace experience at the lower and the higher levels, to feel them emotionally and to understand them conceptually.  And after you have taken the time for analysis, investigation, to verify, and to contemplate, then take your “knowing” at that level and translate it back down to the emotional level so that you can experience it fully in your neurology.  In Neuro-Semantics, we call that the mind-to-muscle process.

L.  Michael Hall, Ph.D.

sabato 19 marzo 2011

Auguri Italia, auguri Roseto, auguri Filomena!

Interessantissimo post di Fabio Vallarola oggi su zF.
Sempre interessante, acuto, preparato e capace di creare nuovi scenari o di recuperare memorie importanti su cui riflettere.

Ognuno come puó!
Abbi Gioia


Oggi ricorrono i 150 anni dell'Unità. Giorno felice e importante che tutti (perlomeno quelli di buon senso!) festeggiano dal profondo del cuore.

Ma tra qualche giorno ricorre il centocinquantenario di un altro evento importante per chi si sente rosetano come me. Il 23 marzo del 1911, qualche giorno dopo l'Unità d'Italia, fu intitolata, a Santa Filomena, la chiesa di Roseto degli Abruzzi.
A quell'epoca il Lido delle Rose era poco di più di una fermata ferroviaria, una chiesa, poche case di ricchi signori, latifondisti che avevano sulle proprie proprietà la Villa per i bagni estivi (meravigliose architetture che ancora oggi punteggiano Roseto: Mazzarosa, De Vincentiis, Castelli, Clemente, Savini, Ponno, etc., una villa più bella dell'altra) e piccole "pinciare" dove i marinai rimettevano le attrezzature di pesca delle proprie lancette.
Il resto era composto da un mare meraviglioso una duna costiera ricca di vegetazione, aree coltivate nelle piane umide retrodunali e boschi planiziali al piede della collina. Per rivedere quegli ambienti dobbiamo calarci con l'immaginazione nelle incomparabili raffigurazioni che fa Pasquale Celommi degli ambienti di allora (foto all'inizio del post). 

venerdì 18 marzo 2011

“Leadership For the 21st Century” (by TRIBAL LEADERSHIP)

Interesting video about Leadreship by TRIBAL LEADERSHIP blog.
Good question and very good answer...

Eveyone as best as he can!
Have Joy

(March 14, 2011 at USC with Tony Hsieh, Warren Bennis & Dave Logan)
Listen to this 5 minute segment where Tony Hsieh (Zappos) answers how people in the middle of an organization can provide leadership to upgrade the organization’s culture.


mercoledì 16 marzo 2011

Tre modi per diventare un "Acchiappa-Talenti" (di Harvard Business Review)

"Acchiappa-Talenti" é il sintetico e utile articolo tratto da HBR Italia, che pone l´accento su 3 punti focali dello sviluppo di qualsiasi organizzazione.
Quello di cui sono convinto é che il maggior valore degli individui offra un maggior valore alle organizzazioni in cui sono inseriti e in cui recitano una parte attiva.

Ognuno come puó!
Abbi Gioia

Le aziende di maggior successo spesso prosperano grazie ai loro talenti. Reclutare le persone migliori dovrebbe essere in cima alla lista di ogni manager. Per diventare un "Acchiappa-Talenti", provate a seguire questi tre suggerimenti:

1. Riconosci il talento prima di averne bisogno. Spendete del tempo per fare networking nella vostra azienda. Cercate di capire chi sono gli astri nascenti e che cosa questi amano del loro lavoro. Favorire queste relazioni da subito pagherà più avanti.

2. Promuovete voi stessi, non il business. Le persone di grande talento sono entusiaste di lavorare con i leader dei quali possono fidarsi e dai quali possono imparare. Siate certi che queste persone conoscono perchè lavorare per voi.

3. Prendetevi del tempo per coltivare il talento. È probabile che i migliori talenti siano impegnati su altri progetti. Reclutare queste persone è come un gioco a lungo termine: aggiornateli regolarmente sul vostro business e sulla visione per il futuro.
HBR homepage

martedì 15 marzo 2011

Superare gli ostacoli cambiando prospettiva (dal blog IL FARO DI DANTE)

Grazie a Dante D´Alfonso e al suo prezioso blog, IL FARO DI DANTE, oggi prendo in prestito questo strepitoso spunto da lui selezionato.

Ognuno come puó!
Abbi Gioia

(tratto da “Il pensiero laterale”, E. De Bono)
Molti anni fa, ai tempi in cui un debitore insolvente poteva essere gettato in prigione, un mercante di Londra si trovò, per sua sfortuna, ad avere un grosso debito con un usuraio. L'usuraio, che era vecchio e brutto, si invaghì della bella e giovanissima figlia del mercante, e propose un affare. Disse che avrebbe condonato il debito se avesse avuto in cambio la ragazza.

Il mercante e sua figlia rimasero inorriditi della proposta. Perciò l'astuto usuraio propose di lasciar decidere alla Provvidenza. Disse che avrebbe messo in una borsa vuota due sassolini, uno bianco e uno nero, che poi la fanciulla avrebbe dovuto estrarne uno. Se fosse uscito il sassolino nero, sarebbe diventata sua moglie e il debito di suo padre sarebbe stato condonato. Se la fanciulla invece avesse estratto quello bianco, sarebbe rimasta con suo padre e anche in tal caso il debito sarebbe stato rimesso. Ma se si fosse rifiutata di procedere all'estrazione, suo padre sarebbe stato gettato in prigione e lei sarebbe morta di stenti.

Il mercante, benché con riluttanza, finì con l'acconsentire. In quel momento si trovavano su un vialetto di ghiaia del giardino del mercante e l'usuraio si chinò a raccogliere i due sassolini. Mentre egli li sceglieva, gli occhi della fanciulla, resi ancor più acuti dal terrore, notarono che egli prendeva e metteva nella borsa due sassolini neri. Poi l'usuraio invitò la fanciulla a estrarre il sassolino che doveva decidere la sua sorte e quella di suo padre...

Immaginiamo di trovarci in quel vialetto, di fronte alla scelta del sassolino, cosa potremmo fare? Cosa potremmo consigliare a questa ragazza?

Probabilmente la maggior parte di noi potrebbe rifiutarsi di estrarre il sasso o protestare di fronte all’ingiustizia e cercare di smascherare l’imbroglio, o perfino vedersi costretto ad estrarre un sassolino dalla borsa, sacrificandosi per il padre.

In questo modo però non riusciremmo a superare l’ostacolo: se la ragazza non estraesse il sassolino suo padre finirebbe in prigione, nel caso contrario dovrebbe sposare l’usuraio. 

Come si conclude l’aneddoto?

... La ragazza introdusse la mano nella borsa ed estrasse un sassolino, ma senza neppur guardarlo se lo lasciò sfuggire di mano facendolo cadere sugli altri sassolini del vialetto, fra i quali si confuse. «Oh, che sbadata!» esclamò. «Ma non vi preoccupate: se guardate nella borsa potrete immediatamente dedurre, dal colore del sassolino rimasto, il colore dell'altro.»

Naturalmente, poiché quello rimasto era nero, si dovette presumere che ella avesse estratto il sassolino bianco, dato che l'usuraio non osò ammettere la propria disonestà. In tal modo, la ragazza riuscì a risolvere assai vantaggiosamente per sé una situazione che sembrava senza scampo. La ragazza, in realtà, si salvò in un modo molto più brillante di quanto non le sarebbe riuscito se l'usuraio fosse stato onesto e avesse messo nella borsa un sassolino bianco e uno nero, perché in tal caso avrebbe avuto solo il cinquanta per cento delle probabilità in suo favore. Il trucco che escogitò le offrì invece la sicurezza di rimanere col padre e di ottenergli la remissione del debito.

Ma come possiamo cambiare prospettiva di fronte ad un problema? Alcuni consigli: 

1. CREARE ALTERNATIVE INVECE DI SELEZIONARE QUELLE ESISTENTI: ricordiamoci che esistono molte strade percorribili, molteplici alternative da considerare e soprattutto da costruire: non sempre affidarsi a ciò che sembra rappresentare la soluzione migliore è una mossa efficace. Cercare diversi punti di vista da cui osservare la situazione e crearne di nuovi potrebbe aprirci la strada verso soluzioni inaspettate. 

2. NON AVER TIMORE DEGLI ERRORI: possiamo concederci di sbagliare percorso se questo serve ad arrivare alla giusta soluzione; ci sono momenti in cui è necessario sbagliare per accorgersi che l’idea giusta era proprio accanto a noi. 

3. ABBANDONARE MODELLI, CATEGORIE, ETICHETTE: esplorare il contesto, le possibilità anche più remote, meno evidenti, ci aiuta a decodificare i nostri preconcetti, a liberarci da inquadrature determinate in cui cercare soluzioni. Oltrepassando questo confine si apre un crocevia di nuovi percorsi da percorrere! 

4. UTILIZZARE STRUMENTI PRATICI: usiamo come bussola strumenti semplici, come il PMI (E. De Bono); ogni volta che abbiamo un problema possiamo dividere in tre parti un foglio, elencando il Più, il Meno e l’Interessante (punti positivi, negativi ed interessanti) e capire da che parte pende la bilancia... Sembra semplice, ma in genere capita di cercare ragioni per supportare la propria scelta, e non di analizzare la situazione per poi decidere che strada intraprendere… 

5. AUMENTARE LE POSSIBILITÀ DI SOLUZIONE INVECE CHE ACCONTENTARSI DI UNA SOLUZIONE MEDIOCRE: alla fine è necessario prendere una decisione, giusta o sbagliata che sia… ricordate l’apologo dell’asino? Un asino che aveva sia fame che sete doveva scegliere tra un secchio d’acqua e il fieno. Ma dopo giorni di indecisione l’asino morì, non riuscendo a decidersi. Se siamo di fronte a due alternative altrettanto valide, cerchiamo di focalizzare l’attenzione sui punti deboli o negativi di ogni opzione, di sperimentarle, ed alla fine di prendere una decisione. In che modo potremmo avere sia acqua che fieno?

lunedì 14 marzo 2011

Seven questions for leaders (by Seth Godin)

Seven interesting questions by Seth Godin which I just add white spaces if you wanted to give your personal answers.

Everyone as best as he can!
Have Joy

- Do you let the facts get in the way of a good story?

- What do you do with people who disagree with you... do you call them names in order to shut them down?

- Are you open to multiple points of view or you demand compliance and uniformity? [Bonus: Are you willing to walk away from a project or customer or employee who has values that don't match yours?]

- Is it okay if someone else gets the credit?

- How often are you able to change your position?

- Do you have a goal that can be reached in multiple ways?

- If someone else can get us there faster, are you willing to let them?

No textbook answers... It's easy to get tripped up by these. In fact, most leaders I know do.

Seth Godin

SETH GODIN´S homepage


Neuro-Semantica (727) Self-Actualization (701) leadership (600) ZETETESNEWS (524) Giannicola De Antoniis Bacchetta (463) Creativitá e Innovazione (417) VIDEO (293) FRASE DELLA SETTIMANA (287) extra (141) Michael Hall (131) LIBRI CONSIGLIATI (98) PNL (85) TED (85) teamwork (83) Creatività e Innovazione (79) HBR (45) politica (44) Borsacchio (43) Abraham Maslow (33) BLESSYOU (29) Alfred Korzybski (20) eventi (18) Seth Godin (17) Peter Senge (15) SBROLLA (15) i libri di Susanna (14) Steve Jobs (13) Albert Einstein (12) Richard Bandler (11) il gioco del cervello (11) Lucia Giovannini (9) John Grinder (8) Virginia Satir (8) solidarietà (8) MED (7) Nicola Riva (7) Paolo Conte (7) Randy Pausch (7) Robert Dilts (7) Roseto Sharks (7) ZETEUCI SU ROSETO.COM (7) basket (7) slideshow (7) Aristotele (6) Gregory Bateson (6) Mr. Selfdevelopment (6) Nelson Mandela (6) Walt Disney (6) 24sec. (5) Carlo Maria CIpolla (5) David Byrne (5) Dragos Roua (5) Fabio Celommi (5) Fritz Perl (5) Henry Ford (5) Louise Hay (5) Pick the Brain (5) Bill Gates (4) David Logan (4) Giuseppe Verdi (4) Google (4) IKEA (4) John Lennon (4) John Wooden (4) Killer-Design-System (4) Leo Babauta (4) Martin Luther King (4) Michael Jordan (4) Milton Erickson (4) Pablo Picasso (4) Richard St. John (4) leggi della stupidità umana (4) social network (4) tutta un'altra vita (4) Charles Darwin (3) Chiara Ippoliti (3) Daniel Goleman (3) Daniel Pink (3) Dante D´Alfonso (3) Derek Sivers (3) Edward G. Muzio (3) Giancarlo Alberti (3) Jung (3) Laura Trice (3) Leonardo da Vinci (3) Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (3) Napoleone (3) Negoziazione (3) Noam Chomsky (3) Oscar Wilde (3) Richard Branson (3) Sir Ken Robinson (3) Socrate (3) The Beatles (3) Tom Heck (3) William Edwards Deming (3) Winston Churchill (3) monkey (3) Ahmed Hakami (2) Alessia Graziani (2) Alexandre Dumas (2) Ali Luke (2) Alison Gopnik (2) Angelo Cioci (2) Antoine Dufour (2) Astrid Morganne (2) Barack Hussein Obama II (2) Barry Schwartz (2) Bart Kosko (2) Benjamin Franklin (2) Buckminster Fuller (2) Buddha (2) Charles Leadbeater (2) Chris Gardner (2) Claudio Bisio (2) Colin Cox (2) Colin Powell (2) Dalai Lama (2) DesJardins (2) Donald Trump (2) Edward de Bono (2) Facebook (2) Forbes (2) Francesco I (2) François de La Rochefoucauld (2) Gail Brenner (2) Gandhi (2) George Bernard Shaw (2) Harry Potter (2) Hidesaburo Kagiyama (2) Ignazio di Loyola (2) James Hillman (2) Jared Diamond (2) Jeff Bezos (2) Jennifer Martin (2) Jim Collins (2) Jim Rohn (2) Joanne Kathleen Rowling (2) John Kenn Mortensen (2) Katsuya Hosotani (2) Luigi Pirandello (2) Malcolm Gladwell (2) Martin Haworth (2) Matteo Renzi (2) Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (2) Napoleon Hill (2) Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov (2) Oscar Farinetti (2) Osho (2) Pat Metheny (2) Patrizio Di Marco (2) Philip Zimbardo (2) Ralph Waldo Emerson (2) Rives (2) Sam Leader (2) Seneca (2) Simon Sinek (2) Summerhill (2) Tony Hsieh (2) Tony Robbins (2) Tracy Chevalier (2) Victor Frankl (2) Viktor Frankl (2) Vince Lombardi (2) Voltaire (2) Warren Bennis (2) Wayne W. Dyer (2) Wyatt Woodsmall (2) fun theory (2) il sole24ore (2) starbucks (2) workshop (2) 3M Company (1) ALISSA FINERMAN (1) Aaron Beck (1) Abbe Partee (1) Abramo Lincoln (1) Adam Somlai-Fischer (1) Adrian Reynolds (1) AhnTrio (1) Alan Cohen (1) Alan Fayter (1) Albert Ellis (1) Alberto Bagnai (1) Alessandro Di Fiore (1) Alessandro Manzoni (1) Alex Douzet (1) Alexander Lowen (1) Alexis Ohanian (1) Ali Carr-Chellman (1) Alice Stewart (1) Amellia Barr (1) Amma (1) Amy C. Edmondson (1) Amy Tan (1) Anassagora (1) Anders Ericcksson (1) Andrea Bocelli (1) Andreas Dullweber (1) Andrew Bryant (1) Andrew Grove (1) Andy Hobsbawm (1) Angeles Arrien (1) AnnMarie Thomas (1) Anne Lamott (1) Annie Dickinson (1) Antonio Machado (1) Antonio Maurizio Gaetani (1) Apple (1) Arai Restem (1) Archetipi (1) Arthur Benjamin (1) Arthur Rubinstein (1) Arti Marziali (1) Arun Majumdar (1) Astor Piazzolla (1) BGSA (1) Baba Shiv (1) Baltasar Gracian (1) Baltasar Gracián (1) Barcellona (1) Barrie Davenport (1) Bea Fields (1) Benjamin Disraeli (1) Benjamin Zander (1) Beppe Grillo (1) Bertolt Brecht (1) Bertrand Russell (1) Bill Watterson (1) Billy Swan (1) Blaise Pascal (1) Bob Proctor (1) Bobby McFerrin (1) Bruno Boero (1) CLUETRAIN (1) Cameron Russell (1) Caravaggio (1) Carl Rogers (1) Carla Evani (1) Carlos Castaneda (1) Carmine Gallo (1) Cartesio (1) Cesare Di Cesare (1) Cesare Pavese (1) Champoluc (1) Charles Bukowski (1) Charles Gordon (1) Charles Hazlewood (1) Charles Stanley (1) Charlie Chaplin (1) Charlie Gilkey (1) Chesley Sullenberger (1) Chip Conley (1) Chris Emdin (1) Christopher Hitchens (1) Claude Steiner (1) Clayton Christensen (1) Coach DeForest (1) Colin Wilson (1) Dale Dougherty (1) Dan Ariely (1) Dan Gilbert (1) Dan Peterson (1) Daniel M. Wood (1) Daniel Pennac (1) Daniel Tomasulo (1) Daniel Wood (1) Danny Tuckwood (1) Dante Alighieri (1) Dart Fener (1) Dave Brubeck (1) Dave Meslin (1) David Balakrishnan (1) David G. Myers (1) David Grossman (1) David Henry Thoreau (1) David Lynch (1) De Lijn (1) Debora Serracchiani (1) Deborah Keep (1) Dennis Gabor (1) Desmond Tutu (1) Don Draper (1) Don Kelbick (1) Don Sull (1) Donald Calne (1) Douglas A. Ready (1) Douglas Cartwright (1) Dylan Dog (1) Edgar Allan Poe (1) Edgar Lee Master (1) Edoardo Catemario (1) Elizabeth Gilbert (1) Elizabeth Kolber-Ross (1) Ellen Gustafson (1) Elon Musk (1) Emile Zola (1) Emiliano Salinas (1) Enric Sala (1) Enrico Letta (1) Enrico Sassoon (1) Enzo Jannacci (1) Epitteto (1) Ercole Cordivari (1) Eric Hoffer (1) Eric Lenard (1) Erica Chilese (1) Erich Fromm (1) Ernest Newman (1) Ernesto Sirolli (1) Ettore Scola (1) Eurythmics (1) Eva Di Tullio (1) Evan Williams (1) Fabio Fazio (1) Fabio Vallarola (1) Fabio Volo (1) Farid al-Din 'Attar (1) Federico Mana (1) Fjodor. Dostoevskij (1) Forrest Sawyer (1) Fran Burgess (1) Franco Califano (1) Frank Pucelik (1) Franz Kafka (1) Fred Reichheld (1) Friedrich Nietzsche (1) Fritz Perls (1) Frédéric Cozic (1) GIRLEFFECT (1) GZA (1) Gabriela Andersen-Schiess (1) Gaetano Cuffari (1) Galileo Galilei (1) Garr Reynolds (1) Genndy Tartakovsky (1) George De Mestral (1) George Kelly (1) George Kneale (1) George Miller (1) George Orwell (1) Georges Simenon (1) Gerard Hranek (1) Gerard Tellis (1) Giacomo Rizzolati (1) Gianluigi Zarantonello (1) Gianni Rodari (1) Gill Corkindale (1) Gioia (1) Giorgione (1) Giovanni Allevi (1) Giulio Pedicone (1) Giuseppe Calasanzio (1) Gloria Leung (1) Gordon Brown (1) Grace Murray Hopper (1) Graham Hill (1) Grazia Scuccimarra (1) Greg Northcraft (1) H.Q. Roosevelt (1) H.S. Jennings (1) Hal B. Gregersen (1) Harold Wilson (1) Heidi Grant Halvorson (1) Henry O. Dormann (1) Henry Staten (1) Homer Simpson (1) Howard Hughes (1) Howard Rheingold (1) Hulk Hogan (1) Isaac Newton (1) Isabel Behncke (1) Issy Sharp (1) Italo Calvino (1) Itay Talgam (1) Ivan Pavlov (1) Ivano Fossati (1) Ivo Milazzo (1) J. S. Nye Jr. (1) JK (1) Jack Benny (1) James Cameron (1) James Geary (1) James Joyce (1) Jan Carlzon (1) Jane Goodall (1) Jane McGonigal (1) Jason Green (1) Jay A. Conger (1) Jayasree Goparaju (1) Jean-Luc Godard (1) Jeff Haefner (1) Jeffrey Gitomer (1) Jeffrey H. Dyer (1) Jeremy Rifkin (1) Jim Estill (1) Johann Pachelbel (1) John F. Kennedy (1) John F. Smith (1) John Fante (1) John Galliano (1) John King (1) John Lubbock (1) John Maxwell (1) John Shook (1) John Weakland (1) Jordi Canyigueral (1) Jose Antonio Abreu (1) Joseph Chilton Pearce (1) Joseph Nye (1) Jules Renard (1) Julian Treasure (1) KENT NERBURN (1) Kahlil Gibran (1) Karen Thompson Walker (1) Ken Blanchard (1) Kiran Bir Sethi (1) Kirby Ferguson (1) L'AVVOCATO DEL DIAVOLO (1) LAS mobili (1) Lakoff e Jonhson (1) Lance Secretan (1) Lao Tsu (1) Lao Tzu (1) Lau Tzu (1) Legge di Finagle (1) Leibnitz (1) Leonardo Boff (1) Leonardo Sciascia (1) Linda Burstein (1) Linda Hill (1) Lisa Marshall (1) Lord Chesterton (1) Lori Taylor (1) Luca Maggitti (1) Lucio Battisti (1) Lucy Freedman (1) Ludwig Börne (1) Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (1) Luigi Ponziani (1) Maison Dior (1) Marc Benioff (1) Marcel Proust (1) Marcello Pamio (1) Marcia W. Blenko (1) Marco Aurelio (1) Marco Paolini (1) Margaret Heffernan (1) Margaret Neale (1) Margarita Tartakovsky (1) Marie-Louise von Fran (1) Marilyn Monroe (1) Mario Andrea Rigoni (1) Mario Monti (1) Mark Hooson (1) Mark Howell (1) Mark Pagel (1) Mark Twain (1) Mark Wilson (1) Markus Zusak (1) Marlen Haushofer (1) Martin Seligman (1) Matteo Boniciolli (1) Matthew Child (1) Matthieu Ricard (1) Mauro De Marco (1) Max Wertheimer (1) Meyer e Kirby (1) Michael Breen (1) Michael Bungay Stanier (1) Michael C. Mankins (1) Michael Fred Phelps (1) Michael Pollan (1) Michelangelo Buonarroti (1) Miklos Falvay (1) Misty Copeland (1) Mitt Romney (1) Molly Crockett (1) Moni Ovadia (1) Morten Hansen (1) Mr. Rolihlahla Dalibhunga (1) Muhammad Ali (1) Muriel Spark (1) Nichi Vendola (1) Nick Vujicic (1) Nikola Tesla (1) Nina Jablonski (1) Noreena Hertz (1) Norman Vincent Peale (1) Oliver Wendell Holmes (1) Optimum Mind (1) Otto von Bismark (1) Owen Fitzpatrick (1) Pai Mei (1) Paolo Cardini (1) Patricia Kuhl (1) Patrick Awuah (1) Patrick Hunt (1) Patti Digh (1) Patty Hansen (1) Paul Rogers (1) Paul Romer (1) Paul Watzlawick (1) Paulo Coelho (1) Pavel Florenskij (1) Pepe Rodriguez (1) Peter Crocker (1) Peter Druker (1) Peter Eigen (1) Peter Golder (1) Piero Meldini (1) Pink Floyd (1) Pino Daniele (1) Pippo Lionni (1) Plutarco (1) R. L. Stevenson (1) ROSETO.COM (1) RSA Animate (1) Raghava KK (1) Ramachandran Vilayanur (1) Randall Munroe (1) Re Mida (1) Richard Bach (1) Richard Douglas Fosbury (1) Richard Lavoie (1) Richard Wright (1) Rob Markey (1) Robben Ford (1) Robert Cialdini (1) Robert Cringely (1) Robert Frost (1) Robert Gerrish (1) Robert J. Thomas (1) Robert Kiyosaki (1) Robert Musil (1) Robert Spitzer (1) Robert Thurman (1) Robert and Michele Root-Bernstein (1) Roberto Benigni (1) Roberto Verganti (1) Robin Hood (1) Roger Federer (1) Rollo May (1) Rosa Matteucci (1) Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1) Rowan Atkinson (1) Roy Disney (1) Rudolf Nurayev (1) Rudyard Kipling (1) Ruth Benedict (1) Saffo (1) Sai Baba (1) Sally Kohn (1) Salman Khan (1) Salvatore Natoli (1) San Francesco (1) Sarah White (1) Sean Conrad (1) Sean Murray (1) Sebastian Guerrini (1) Sebastiano Maffettone (1) Sergio Caputo (1) Shakespeare (1) Shashi Tharoor (1) Sherlock Holmes (1) Silicon Valley (1) Stefan Sagmeister (1) Stephen Cave (1) Stephen Covey (1) Steve Karpman (1) Steven Pressfield (1) Susan Jeffers (1) TRECCANI (1) TalentZoo (1) Tangram (1) Tarzan (1) Tata Lucia (1) Thandie Newton (1) Thomas Alva Edison (1) Thomas Edison (1) Thomas Jefferson (1) Thomas Moore (1) Tim Bajarin (1) Tim Berners-Lee (1) Tim Goodenough (1) Timothy Ferriss (1) Timothy Prestero (1) Titti Stama (1) Tom Wujec (1) Tommaso Cerno (1) Tonino Carotone (1) Tony Buzan (1) Tony Hayward (1) Tony Schwartz (1) Totò (1) Tracy O'Connor (1) Tracy O’Connor (1) Trilussa (1) Uma Thurman (1) Vasco Rossi (1) Virgin Mary (1) Virginia Woolf (1) WWF (1) Walt Whitman (1) Walter Bonatti (1) William Blake (1) William Butler Yeats (1) William James (1) William Somerset Maugham (1) William Ury (1) Winnie the Pooh (1) Wystan Hugh Auden (1) Xerox (1) Yang Lan (1) Yoda (1) Yum Yum (1) Zaz (1) Zecharia Sitchin (1) Zenone (1) Zig Ziglar (1) blender (1) fras (1) fratelli Wright (1) iO Tillett Wright (1) john Stuart Mill (1) leader (1) pensiero positivo (1) re del Bhutan (1) rugby (1) santi (1) save the children (1) twitter (1) vivizen (1)