Medical students must take the Hippocratic Oath, a promise to “first, do no harm,’ (“primum non nocere” is the Latin translation from the original Greek.) While we may not be a medical student or a doctor, perhaps an oath to do no harm is a good foundation for our communication.
Of course, after we make such an oath, the real wisdom comes in knowing what doing “no harm” actually means in a given situation. In NLP we learn to notice that the meaning of words can be very ambiguous. We speak of words like “peace” or “kind” or even “wisdom” as not fitting in a wheelbarrow. When we say “house” or “dog” or “finger” we know what that means, even though our specific example differs for each of us.
During a recent lunch with SCS/NLP graduate, Brian Turk, and his wife, Tegan Trovato, we saw first hand how the meaning of the message is the response it elicits. The term that did not resonate with Joel was “conceptual thinking.” The conversation was about the value of elevating or expanding our perception as a way of inviting inspiration or possibility. With a few questions, Joel agreed that the term “transrational awareness” allowed him to agree with the nature of the conversation.
Joel recently discovered he was missing some email messages, so I sent a text message saying, “Letting you know I have responded to a few email messages from today, and copied you on one to Karen K.”
Joel’s text message back was, “The only one I received was the copy of the one you sent to Karen K.”
I sent another text message, “I also responded to both of your ‘testing SCS’ messages letting you know I had received them.”
“Yes, I received those. I thought you meant real messages.” Ouch. My mind went to the perception that his “testing SCS” message was real but my reply was not. A few days later I asked him what he meant. Real meant a new message initiated by me.
It is easy to see less-than-artful words others use, but perhaps we are not always as mindful of the harm that can inadvertently be done by our choice of words, or our response to what someone else has said. The following excerpt from Healing with Language gives some helpful suggestions for those times when our communication has done harm:
When rapport is lost as a result of something you have said or done, reestablishing it is a four-step process:
• Assess. How much of rapport have you actually lost? Is the other person angry, or are you simply a bit out of step with one another? Avoid mind reading. You may need to comment specifically on the loss of rapport and ask what you said or did that the other person has found upsetting. Make sure that your perception of the loss of rapport is correct and that you understand what you said or did that the other person found upsetting. When you understand the reason for the other person’s point of view, your own point of view may change.
• Apologize. An apology is often the fastest way to reestablish rapport. To be effective, your apology needs to be both sincere and appropriate. Avoid assuming responsibility for what the other person is thinking or feeling. At the same time, be willing to assume responsibility for having said or done whatever triggered the other person’s response.
• Amend. When they discover that what they have said or done has hurt another person’s feelings, most people begin defending their behavior in an attempt to prove that the other person is wrong to think or feel a particular way. Remember that the other person’s feelings are based on his or her perspective and previous experience and can’t be “wrong.”
• Affirm. Acknowledge points of agreement and, when appropriate, the importance of the relationship. Loss of rapport, even significant loss of rapport, does not mean the end of the relationship, and affirming the importance of the relationship following a loss of rapport may actually strengthen the bond.
The chances are that if you try to show the other person why he or she should not have those feelings or why he or she is wrong to think a particular way, you will exacerbate the loss of rapport. Being willing to understand why the other person is thinking or feeling a particular way and an appropriate apology will usually help reestablish rapport. Find a new way to say what you need to say, using a different word or phrase, or provide additional information about your perspective, being sure to express empathy for the other’s perspective.
In the Osho Transformational Tarot, #40 is Wholeness: No man is an island, we are all part of a vast continent. There is variety, but this does not make us separate. Variety makes life richer—part of us is in the Himalayas, a part of us is in the stars, a part of us is in the roses. A part of us is in the bird on the wing, a part of us is in the green of the trees. We are spread all over. To experience it as reality will transform your whole approach towards life, will transform your every act, will transform your very being.
Joel and Debra have almost twenty years of learning and growth and we are still learning and growing. We still have a dozen or so boxes of Healing with Language. Let us know if you are in a position to make this valuable information available to those who can benefit from more wisdom and peace, whatever that means to you!