How does (y)our mind works? – Mentoring 4

Logo by Titia Lelie

I used a naming technique to find a name for our company and came up with “mind@work”. Only years later, I realized, that that’s exactly the point of facilitating groups.

Currently, much of our behaviour is being attributed to the brain. I’ve never believed in it. Which is, by the way, no reason for not working with these concepts. As long as they’re “good enough”. Gradually also brain scientists come to the conclusion, that we’ve reached “the end of the metaphor-in-use”. Thinking is inherently metaphorical .

I rather follow Bennett and Hacker, Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. And Freeman – “How Brains Make up Their Minds”.

How does the mind work? You’ll never can tell. We cannot trace a given experience to its origin in a unique fashion. Also, we cannot step outside the domain of our body and nervous system. (quoting Francisco Varela, The Creative Circle, here). If we also had to trace thought to its origin – or build and maintain these traces – we would never finish a sentence. (You might know, that I’ve been called the King of sentences within parenthesis by the editor of my book).

We continuously create objective and subjective “reality”. But not at a whim or at will, or as a fantasy. We’ve taught ourselves to keep the difference between the two as small as possible. It does explain, why we tend to build houses, streets and towns. At least, when awake.

We think we think with our brain, and thinking is a whole body experience (aka “embodied mind“). I’ve studied Biophysics in the late 70’s and then concluded, that a brain (including ears and eyes) operates as self-adapting (networks of) pattern recognition filters.

Brains seem to “apply” Baysian logic to reduce differences between expectations and perceived reality to an acceptable level (you can see the problem there: real reality doesn’t care about our perceptions. This is what we call “surprises” or “bad luck”).

The behaviours of individual neurons let me to conclude that they apply a kind of three-valued logic (rest – excitation – inhibition), where inhibiting plays the main role. This makes more sense then the on/off, 1/0, yes/no computer logic.

Also, in using language we’ve invented meta-metaphors. Our perception is metaphorical in nature (there is no retinal image conveyed to the brain neurons) and these – tacit, implicit – metaphors the networks “translate” (another word for metaphor) into language – a major evolutionary breakthrough we’re still getting used to.

“ (the creator of language) designates the relations of things to men. For expressing these relations he lays hold of the boldest metaphors. To begin with, a nerve stimulus is transferred into an image: first metaphor.The image, in turn, is imitated in a sound: second metaphor. And each time there is a complete leap from one sphere, right into the middle of an entirely new and different one.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, On Truth and Lying in an Extra-Moral Sense

The current structure (grammar) of language is based on an command-and-control structure – which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint -, but remains inadequate for use in the current complex societies we ourselves created. It takes about 3 generations to shift to another grammar. So, no hurries.

Suggestions for facilitating

You don’t know. Always better to state that. We differ in what we know; we’re equal in the vastness of what we don’t know. Or, to quote Josh Billings I honestly beleave it iz better tew know nothing than two know what ain’t so.

In case of doubt: touch something concrete, like a wall, a desk, table. If that’s not possible – you’re alone a stage -, put your feet firmly on the ground and keep your shoulders right above them. Relax. (People “read” your “body language”).

Use “Clean Language“, invented – or discovered – by David Grove. Just reflect back to the client or participant the words and metaphor they’ve been using. With “clean” we refer to your intentions: don’t add anything from your perspective.

The learning is in the resistance. Whenever differences between “perceived” and “actual” reality crosses a threshold – it differs from one to another person, and also from situation to situation -, attention gets triggered. One part of the brain – as the saying goes -, wants safety; another part will be curious. This create “resistance to change”. And that’s were the learning happens. So again, relax, take your time. Move towards the resistance, asking questions like “who recognizes/feels/notices this too?” (and if nobody does, you do).

Posted in brain, brein faciliteren, Metaphor, mind, mind@work methode, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Run facilitator, run – Mentoring facilitators 3

Facilitators try to do their best to reach goals. It can be like “the Red Queen”-paradox from Alice Through the Looking Glass: all the running just keeps you in the same place.; if you want to make progress, you have to run even harder. There is a lesson in here. Let’s take this metaphor of running to its limits.


“… . When I was trying so hard to finish every marathon I exactly felt uncomfortable. Because I always had so many aims to complete, daily run, weekly run, monthly run, yearly run… In runner groups we are always compete with each others. How fast, how long, how many times a year we can run…

2 years ago, once I dropped out at 20KM check point because of my hurting knees. I cried for 2 hours and I hated to be a failure. I even felt shame to talk about that history. After that I spent one whole year not pushing myself too much or too hard. I can enjoy running and being lazy. I was so struggling with my own decisions between desiring win or not caring loose…

Finally I don’t care the scores, records any-more. Exactly I don’t care how people look at me any-more. It’s my choice to run or not, nobody can judge.   It was long journey, but very worthy living through. This experience made me understand failure can be gift as well. ”  

For one thing, I like the triple metaphor: ‘”running a (marathon) journey” as running a journey’ within a journey of learning. You can see how our subconscious knowing – your “body” -, “knows” in term of metaphor, translated by your brain into conscious knowledge,  a sentence about the metaphor about a learning journey. Which is also a “marathon”.   You can also see here, why – as a facilitator – you shouldn’t focus on reaching “a predetermined goal” as a goal. A goal is a means to an end and not the end of the means.

A goal is a means to an end and not the end of the means.

With facilitation, always act with the end in mind. We’re used to having goals and most of the time see them as part of a contest. Winning is the end (finishing) of a race, but not its end (as a destination). In every session, the goals (S.M.A.R.T.) are not to be confused with the end (results), because then you might assume it’s about “competing”. Never compete with a group.

It’s an easy mistake to confuse goals with ends. The paradox of cooperating -we’ll come back to it later -, states that every good cooperation looks like a competition. When you’re running together, an outsider may see this picture as a chase. With a winner – up front – and a bunch of losers – at the back.

This has also become the picture of an organization: we’re co-operating to compete. We have been taught that competition brings better results. It doesn’t, cooperating does. We even frame evolution as a game of winners and losers. This is a fallacy. Evolution has no end (pun intended). Cooperating is inherently rewarding. Life is a game with only one rule: “this is not a game”.

Some tips to guide towards an end

  • If you must define a goal, create a relative goal and not an absolute. (This is making a distinction between counting (absolutes) and measuring (relatives)). Off course, you’ve noticed the word “relative”, which already points at, well, “relatives”. I defined the goal of an “Agile” project as the ratio between inventory and sales. A smart goal can always be: “halve of what it is now in a year”.
  • Always let the group sets its own ends and derived goals. Keep this open with your client. He or she may have an opinion about the goals. And that’s it, an opinion (and put it to the test). Just ask them to establish a S.M.A.R.T goal for the session or the project. And then have a conversation on the differences. Funny enough, most of the time, groups will set their goals higher than you’d expect.
  • Make goal setting into a cooperative game, For instance, have participants stand against a wall. Draw a line. Say to them, “this is our goal. How far are we already?”
  • Keep failing as an option. Frame every session as an experiment, a test, a pilot, a try-out, a dress rehearsal. Say it and live by it. Also, don’t punish people when they fail.
  • Organizations don’t fail because of mistakes, they fail because of repeating the same mistake over and over again: trying to detect and prevent errors. So in every session, you will see me making mistakes. Don’t tell people they are allowed to make mistakes: show them how you make mistakes AND survive. (I don’t say sorry, by the way; I may only offer my aplogies).
  • Let people make their own choices, then they’ll own them. Ultimately, everybody wants to make their own decisions. One of the most important things – and I know many disagree with me, and indeed most clients -, is that people should be free to attend the meeting, without consequence if they don’t (and I have had meetings were more people came then expected).
  • Allow people to run in different directions. Some times I have a group called “opposition” and they can come up with some wonderful input. Better a small step in the right direction (at the end), than start running in a death-end street.
  • You don’t know the end, until you’ve arrived there. So just end with, “that’s all folks”. We’ve been trained to foresee the end. Treat these as hypotheses. You can only disprove them. (Somehow people say they’re an illusion poorer. I say: “you’re an illusion richer”).
  • Take a rest, give a break, make them pause. You’re brain can only come up with good ideas, when it’s not thinking (clearly I wasn’t thinking when I wrote this)… All good ideas happen at a coffee or other break. (I’ve had proof of even three good idea’s from a meeting at a bar during a session).


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Training and Facilitating – Mentoring facilitators 2

Case 2

How to deal with facilitation and training, has been raised by this quote:

when we talk about adapting from lecturing to facilitating methods in classroom (f2f & virtual), both facilitator and participants have hard time to really get themselves in. In traditional classroom teachers are the one to do input, and in facilitative classroom facilitator helps participants to reframe their study experiences. There will be no expert/teacher any more, the learning is for everyone in there. So, are there any tips to get participants better prepared to go through the hard times? They are the ones to hold the responsibility.

Some theory

I’ve been writing about this in our book with 24 cases of facilitation, “Diverging Conversations through Facilitation” (I’m using it to support this mentoring. If you need a copy, please visit: order your copies of Diverging Conversations on Facilitation). Here is a quote:

Trainer with Facilitator
A trainer trains trainees into perfection, perfecting the execution of a set of activities. This is an Analytical (1st) mode, using scheme’s, testing programs and measuring progress. Most of the time, it is one way. The trainer and the trainee have the same, but not a common goal. In a facilitated training the trainer becomes more of a moderator (4th Evaluative), .. showing how a group can determine its own target and run its own “training” program.

Diverging Conversations through Facilitation – 24 cases p. 17

A teacher or educator transfers knowledge to his or her students. This can be done in several ways (examples in the book; and yes, based on learning styles by Kolb):

  • Learning by doing, designing models and testing them
  • Learning by thinking, creating theories and proving theorems
  • Learning by reflecting, using feelings and thinking, conceptualizing
  • Learning through experimenting, (serious) gaming

In case of facilitating learning, the teacher not only transfers his or hers knowledge. Also participants transfer their knowledge to each other. I like to quote Carl Rogers, “A person cannot teach another person directly; a person can only facilitate another’s learning”

Some tips

  • pose a question and question answer(s) and/or change a statement into a question (and keep using the same words);
  • the learning is in the resistance; view resistance as a learning opportunity. What need is trying to surface?
  • use silence; you can even start a online meeting with a minute silence. Try two too.
  • ask people to think (write down some notes) before anyone speaks;
  • ask people to speak in the first person only
  • get messy (See “Getting Messy” A Guide to Risk Taking and Opening the Imagination for Teachers, Trainers, Coaches and Mentors”by Kim Hermanson PhD.)
  • change roles: let parents play teachers, teachers play school board, pupil play school inspectors … . (Or workers becoming clients, sales people into (production) workers…)
  • Step into another metaphor: this situation is like a zoo (roles become animals), an exploring mission (into deep space?), a movie (or a movie crew – director, camera, sound, editor, ….). What are the qualities of this situation and how can you map them on your current situation.
  • Quoting myself: “when you understand what participants are talking about 1), you’re probably wrong; if you don’t understand them – but they talk among themselves – you’re most probably right.” Participants know their situation, their know-how is about content. A facilitator introduces process questions, like “know-why”. (I love to facilitate people in another language, Chinese, Japanese, Polish, Indian, …Even English is a foreign language to me.)

The book “Facilitating Learning with the Adult Brain in Mind” states clearly: adults learn through reflecting on feedback. Feedback from peers works best. Even when perceived “wrong” from the teacher’s perceptive. People learn from reflecting on their errors, not from correcting or preventing them.

Any thoughts? Insights?

What are you going to do differently tomorrow?

  1. Footnote: Most clients assume you need to have some knowledge of the subject. Don’t fall into this trap – it sets up a “double bind” – because it will be used against you. After the session, they will not use the outcomes, “because the facilitator didn’t understand it like we do”. I never discuss this with my client. Skip it. Just pretend to know enough by using the right key words. More often than not, just repeat the words you read when entering the building. Always check the personnel bulletin.
Posted in communication, Facilitation, Mentoring facilitator, Metaphor, Silence, Training | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Dealing with Questions by Participants – Mentoring facilitators 1

I’ve been asked to mentor a facilitator who is also a member of IAF (International Association of Facilitation). I asked if it’s alright when I share the situations and feedback with you. (S)He agreed.


“Today when I was delivering a facilitative training session online, I felt uncomfortable when participants kept asking the same question again and again. And I had time pressure to end it on time. Later on when I switched off my PC, I just realized those questions where raised from an other cultural background then mine.”

My suggestions

When people in a session ask you questions, I usually DON’T give answer directly. I have to figure out, what the question is about. When people don’t understand something – easy between different cultures -, they also cannot ask a question about it. Because a question is being framed in what they know and understand.

As a facilitator, it is our task to “look for the question”, support them in phrasing their question. Several options:

Say “Thank you for the question” (saying yes on the relationship, giving you time to think – I was caught only once by a participant, who remarked: “smart way of gaining some time”). And then something like:

  • What do you mean by <repeat key word from question>”? (And if necessary follow it up with “.. and <that> is like …?” or “… and what kind of … is …. ?”)
  • What do you need or require (about < subject>)?
  • Until what point, could you follow me/us/the conversation?
  • Who also has this question? (I like this one. It involves the group) and then … “could you give a possible answer?”
  • If it’s not very urgent, I’ll come back on it later. (Write the question down. And in an on line session, I would ask: put it in the chat please)
  • ….

The general rule for a facilitator – based on Schein -: “whenever I’m supporting a client in solving his or her problem, it’s perfectly alright to ask for his or her support in doing so“.

What would you do differently next time?

Posted in Engaging, Facilitation, Mentoring facilitator, Questioning | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Who is afraid of a facilitator?

A tweet by Joyce Matthews, reminded me of our check list in our compilation of 24 cases of facilitation.

A facilitator getting results in a situation with big cultural differences

We adapted a questionnaire by Sandy Schumann, compiler of the IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation. It’s in our book Diverging Conversations through Facilitation.

The list is based on objective aspects of your situation. Here you can find the list Do I need an external facilitator (pdf).

And no, you don’t need to be afraid of hiring a facilitator.

Posted in Facilitation, Faciliteren, Meeting design, Workshop | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Facilitating with the brain in mind

This is a first post of facilitating with the brain in mind. I’m writing this series while developing work shops, master classes and training course about applying knowledge about “the mind at work”. On another page, I’ll give a list of the literature I’ve used.

To Design Thinking or not to Design?

Taylor and Marieua (2016) clearly state: “the brain has not been designed to think“. The brain serves the body in surviving through guiding its motions. Brains facilitate – make easy -, survival. Survival implies firstly and foremost moving away from danger, dark, predators, rotten food, bad people. And secondly, moving towards good stuff, like light, puppies, good food and fellowship.

Learning these things provides the keys for survival. Learning, as an adult, wasn’t necessary. Until a few decades ago, when our self-induced changes caught up with us.

Only creatures that move – swim, walk, fly – developed brains. Plants didn’t need brain, as they didn’t move. AND also the other way around: moving induces brain development, learning.

Moving helps to explain why our neurons cross-over. The left part of a brain controlling the right part of the body and vice versa, seems a design error. It’s not. Evolving nature works practically.

If there’s danger or food on the left side, you move you right side. Forwards or backwards. Like in a canoe: peddling to the back on the right side, moves the vessel to the left; peddling to the front on the right side, moves you to the right. As the first is easier then the latter, we tend to call doing the things to the right right (and “left” is associated with “dark” or “sinister” in Latin)

Most cultures use a “relative” direction of motion. We point and move relative to our body. Up and right is “good”, down and left is “bad”.

When I said, “I thought, …. ” to explain my behaviour, my father used to say: “let a horse do the thinking, their heads are bigger”.

Thinking is a very late addition to the repertoire of brain. That’s why it takes years of training. And we’re still very poor at it.

We cannot work and think at the same time. We derived the word school from the Greek “leisure time. It consumes a lot of energy. Better to practice sport and moving.

Lessons for facilitating

Always give with your “right” hand.

Consider your position. When moving or pointing to something “right”, point to your left side with your right hand. The participants, sitting in front of you, see you pointing towards their right side. With the left (right!) part of their brain.

Paradoxical intervention: moving away from a group, will be sensed as “flight” from something “bad”. So always move towards what feels “bad”: resistance, an interrupt, a problem, a situation. Move away, when all seems “right”.

When feeling stuck: move. Most meetings are conducted sitting down behind tables and afterwards, “nothing happened”.

Posted in brain, brein faciliteren, Metaphor, mind | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Hersenen niet ontworpen om te denken

Denk niet aan denken

“Je moet niet denken”, zei mijn vader vroeger, “laat dat aan paarden over, die hebben een groter hoofd”. Je hersenen zijn niet ontworpen om te denken. Dat maakt denken ook zo vermoeiend.

Hersenen komen voort uit bewegen. Lichamen bewegen. Planten bewegen niet. Ze hebben daarom geen noodzaak voor zenuwen en hersenen. De Eerste Beweger moest beslissen welke richting in te slaan. Naar het licht! En maakte zich zenuwen – je begrijpt nu waarom – en hersenen.

Bewogen beweging

We bewegen in twee richtingen: weg van gevaar, opgegeten worden, kou, donker. En in de richting van veilig, eten, warmte, licht. Dat eerste voorkomen heeft prioriteit over het bereiken van het tweede.

Vandaar dat we bij faciliteren altijd eerst veiligheid bieden. Heet ze welkom. Beweeg bij het begin naar de deelnemers toe. Bied ze een warme ontvangst – koffie, hete thee. Hou het licht aan en serveer iets te eten.

Posted in brein, brein faciliteren, Metafoor | Leave a comment

“I’m not black” – inventing identity

In “Us and Them — The Science of Identity”, David Berreby makes the point that it is incorrect to talk about race at all. “We should talk”, he writes, “ about the way conduct and cognition (my italics) are racialized.” (p321).

The word behaving  — “to conduct” and “to know”— is a verb. You identify somebody through identifying. And not: identification. I’ll show that identity (gender, race, class, nation, …) is not a fact, but an act, a way of acting. There is no such thing as “identity”, only processes of “identifying”. 

Identifying makes sense. And this is why Berreby calls “us and them” a sense. It’s very hard to survive, when you cannot “make sense”. 

In making sense — thinking —  we have to use categories to distinguish “things” (I would have like to write “thinks”). As the Daodejing says: “Once the whole is divided, the parts need names”. So first dividing, naming second. 

And then we’re stuck because we cannot go back to “in-divided”. Naming implies being divided. 

You can only be “black” when you’ve called something “white” (and vice versa). You have to mention another category — I propose “human being” -, to get around this. But then, it doesn’t “solve” a problem any more, because there is none. Or, well, another one: mammals versus human beings. 

You make up categories in your mind. You invent categories. They’re not absolutes, like black and white, but relatives, like you and me. 

Words have no meaning. If I had written this in Greek, Chinese or Arabic, these words would not carry any meaning. Except for a Greek studying Arab with a Chinese parent (interpunction intentionally ambiguous) . 

Human beings assign (attribute) attributes to things they sense and act as if these are absolutes. This makes sense in emergency situations. Watch it. 

Using words as absolutes makes sense in simple situations. “I see a lion” — or “here are berries”. From those situations, we have learned that “words carry meaning”. It’s called the “conduit metaphor of communication”. (yep, there are metaphor on metaphors). 

Words don’t speak, humans speak.When a word refers to a thing, somebody refers to a think (couldn’t resist). 

Referring nouns to a process, verbs, creates problems. There exists no such “thing” as communication (only communicating), no such thing as “hope” (only expecting, or “hoping”) … . Words have no meaning, only a human being has — or should I say “is” — meaning. 

A trick, we currently massively employ, is using your position of power to determine the meaning of words, meaning your meaning. Using the conduit metaphor people create a “sender → channel → receiver” situation in which the sender (I) determines the meaning of the message encoded in words. The receiver (you) has to follow as instructed. 

Please ignore this message. 

We fall in the same trap, when we use the conduit metaphor in answering. You cannot say: “you should use another word for race (or black and white)”. Or, “you should not use these words (on me)”. As this reinforces the situation that created the situation. We end up in power games, discussing about who is right over what is true. (Nothing is always true, and not even that). 

What we’re learning to apply is sometimes called “toolmaker metaphor”. I like to call it “inventing metaphor”. We invent words, sentences, — metaphor — while conversing. So in one conversation, I can say “black”, in another “human” and in a third “I don’t know” about the same “thing”.  

My dear (very) dark-skinned friend Mary startled me, the first time she proclaimed: “I’m not black”. And she couldn’t be more clear. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

mind@work VOF

mind@work has become a “Vennootschap Onder Firma” again. There’s again a partnership between me, Jan Lelie and Godard van Randwijck. Godard and I have been business partners since 1996, until about 2006, when he decided to move to Italy.

Since July 1st, we’ve been cooperating again and just today – August 21st 2019 – the Dutch Chamber of Commerce verified and accepted our documentation and contract.

The (new) registration number is Kvk-nummer: 75628252

Godard will work mainly from Italy and I’ll work from The Netherlands. We’re again serving individuals and companies with facilitation and software.

If you want a copy of our partnership contract: you can find it here:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Facilitating brains at work

Change requires changing your mind, mental models. How do you make up your mind? And how to facilitate this in a group. I developed this story in response to a question in Quora: Does the brain take steps to react in a linear fashion?

A brain doesn’t react, nor does a brain take steps; a living being does. To react doesn’t require a brain. I can refer to Newton’s Third law of Motion: action = -/- (minus) reaction. Any body exerting a force on anybody, exerts an equal force in opposite direction. Mass is the natural way a body resist change; that’s why we call a large group “a mass”: they resist change in equal force.

A body reacts to external triggers. Our body works also by (re)acting without bothering the brain, sometimes called reflexes or instincts. You may notice this while walking or riding a bike. These patterns of behaviour have been tuned to the perceived environment.

I once fell standing in a bus at the bus stop, because a bus next to us in the bus station started to drive. I saw it out of the corner of my eye, the windows of our bus were foggy, and my body “thought”, we moved, so reacted to the perceived motion. I fell in a standing bus. The other way around: you’ll get carsick, when driving and trying to read, as your body and brain process conflicting information.

Brain. An apparatus with which we think what we think. (Ambrose Bierce, The Cynic’s Dictionary (1906); republished as The Devil’s Dictionary (1911)). And we think in metaphors and not in language. For instance “a brain taking steps” is a metaphor. We speak metaphor. I’ll use your metaphor of taking steps, to illustrate how a brain works in a non-linear way.

Human beings mastered the art of translating metaphor into language. The funny thing is, that the word “trans-late” literally means “to carry over” as does the word “meta-phor”, over (meta) to carry (phora). They combine in a nice cycle of steps: ….–> metaphor –> translate –> metaphor –> …

Step 1: remember to recycle

Step 1. A brain also works in cycles, recycles, step by step. A brain reacts on reactions by “remembering” the action-reaction cycles of the body. Please notice the use of “member”, a synonym of “limb”.

Every part or member of your body is represented (or recreated) in your brain and these parts “remember” the motions (that’s why we use the metaphor “emotion” when the feeling has been translated into “motion”). This works through feedback cycles of neuronic activity. In a way, they emulate the cycles in the body. The brain/nerve system structurally couples to the body system. You cannot separate the two.

Step 2: invent a future

Step 2. And now the tricky part: based on past experiences, a brain (re-)creates the future of a next step. As she – I assume a brain is female – “knows” or remembers the cycles, a brain can induce next steps. – Automatically, as a response. In a way, the brain projects the next steps or frames of a cyclical movie on the situation. Using past experiences, you “know” what to expect.

A brain “invents” or “feeds forward” the future. Freeman, in “How Brains Make Up Their Minds”, (I’ve got a signed copy of the book!) calls this an intention. We are intentional beings. The intentions seem to come from our brain, but they’re just repeated or remembered actual “steps”.

Step 3: check the future against reality

Step 3. The next step (sic), the body/brain system checks the intentions with the actual situation. If they match, no problem. Back to step 1, the neuronal cycles are reinforced. They grow into “habits”, patterns.

If they don’t match, “Houston, we’ve got a problem”. Then the body/brain both reacts to it and learns.

Step 4: adapt the cycles

Step 4. The body reacts by trying to find balance. These reactions triggers (I don’t want to use “informs”, as there is no actual exchange of information) the brain cycles and creates, based on the perceived gap, changes in the brain cycles. So, as I told, I fell over in a still standing bus. Much to the amusement of others.

The differences between intentions and actuality “make” the cycles adapt, or “learn”. Please be aware, that I’m using metaphor. As intentional beings, we tend to read intentionality in every situation. I consider this a by-product of our thinking and not an attribute of reality. The universe, as I like to say, doesn’t care. It makes sense to assume there is a goal, purpose or meaning, because sense-making frames a situation. On the level of neurons and brain, they’re just cycling through action-reactions. As Step 5 shows.

Step 5: re-sume cycles

Step 5. Also, very strange at first, after some time, the adaptation in the brain cycles disappears. Freeman has shown this in very interesting experiments. The “old” or “previous” cycles reappear, and now generate “the same pattern” as before. The patterns do not stay “changed”, which we assume. They revert back to the original patterns.

Here we have to distinguish between the working of a brain and that of a computer. An image or experience is not stored in the brain. There is not “an illustration” or “a picture” of a computer in your brain, nor are their neurons labelled “computer type”. A networked network “remembers” through shifting patterns. As I wrote somewhere else, a brain works like a symphony orchestra. In a way, the violins (and cello’s, and flutes,…) just start repeating a previous theme. This is why we like music so much. Off course, the neurons involved don’t “know” this. But we’re back at step 1.

Side step: giving birth to unlearning

Side step: Interestingly, we need the pains of a mistake, error or loss, to induce producing neurotransmitters to “unlearn” previous cycles of behaviour, in order to remember (learn) new ones. Training, by the way, also makes use of “unlearning” neurotransmitters: exhaustion produces a “high” not unlike some drugs.

Freeman shows how all these processes produce oxytocin, a neurotransmitter which enables neurons to make new connections through – paradoxically – destroying existing ones. As a metaphor, oxytocin gives birth to new cycles and stories. As we’ll see …

The purpose of language is to remember the future

Now in most animals – living creature with a brain -, the experiences of the “mistake” are forgotten. They may have scars, but they cannot remember their causes. Only that they sometimes stop or wait, based on the situation. They’ve learned or adapted.

As we’ve invented language (I think it’s more because of inventing tools, but that’s another story. In a way, tools to throw improve the ability to project into the future. I do seem to remember written about it on this website), human beings are able to “remember” their past.

who do you think you are?

Our brains duly recycles the cycles of experience through stories. You may notice, that your brain seems to produce a stream of consciousness, never ending stories (or dreams). So we tell stories, histories, over and over again, because else we forget who we are and don’t know where to go.

Off course, another metaphor: a body “knows” who (s)he is. You are who you are, like it’s what it is. A body is always in the Here and Now. The brain may mediate between past and future. You may just get confused through the meta-cycles of neurons: brain activities somehow “aware” of brain activity. Planning for the future induces self-awareness. Get a mind and get a self for free.

As I wrote earlier: a brain produces the future, using “models”. What happens in reality encodes neural activities, these activities tune-in on each other and decode into actions, also called “realising”. (Based on Robert Rosen – Life Itself – I’ll delve deeper into this later). The brainy models-in-use adapt through the body – also a model – to real reality.

Long story short: inventing and using (throwing) tools induced developing metaphors, which in turn enables developing languages, digital communication and a sense of self.

Step 6: Change metaphor

Step 6. We’re re-remembering the future from our past. We both adapt to new situations and – unlike other animals -, remember the conditions and can condition others not to make the same mistake. As we’ve invented language, writing, printing, computers and now – voilà – internet.

By using our brain and language, we can exchange metaphors. With written language, we can exchange metaphorical messages without being present. My bet is, that many people were against inventing writing, because it would spell the end of story telling and remembering. With a printing press, we can start sharing on a wide scale. And nowadays, well, look around. But this didn’t change the way our brain works. We just shifted thinking about how she works.

A brain doesn’t work linearly, but cyclical, a bit like spirals, arabesques. The cycles are interlocked: there is no beginning and no ending. They develop themselves, in response to triggers from the outside. The cycles “behave” inside their own environment, closed off from the outside. They create and maintain a model of their environments – it can be proven -, to which they’re structurally coupled.

A brain differs from a computer as a fish differs from a ship. The latter we shaped (that’s why I used the very word “ship”), while the first created itself. A brain is not a machine, nowhere near.

Human beings can now go back to Step 1 and (after some thousands years of recycling) “step on the moon”. The next steps may be of interest to facilitators.

Step 7: interfering with change

Step 7. Now here comes the role of a facilitator or catalyst: in educating a group of human beings into new behaviour – or “change” -, telling someone what to do or not to do, will not be enough. Nor having the same intentions or a common vision of the future. Change means action, interaction.

Stories don’t work like programs, nor like algorithms. Stories do not resemble software. Stories work as heuristics, invented inventions. They’re lengthy metaphors, modelling real life situations. Stories “change” and we change, as we change our stories. And this involves recognizing “loss”.

As intelligent animals, we still need to experience experiences, the physical, “exercise”. We have to “work-through” emotions. So we call our meetings a “work-shop”.

Our body produces oxytocin, to change the cycles of thoughts in our brains. Brains “resist” producing oxytocin, as if she “knows” it will change her. So in facilitating we have to mix body work with brain work and thinking and feeling with (inter)acting.

Sometimes, this works through emotions, letting people express resistances. Sometimes through hard work, exhaustion. Sometimes through playing, role-play, simulating or constellations. Strang as it may sound, we have to forget our remembering, step over our losses, accept “defeat”.

Here is another good way to produce oxytocin: laughing. Having fun, playing, eating together. Irrationality, playing the fool actually enables change by promoting the bonding hormone. Off course, this is not yet an acceptable way in rational organisations. We’ll have to frame it as “serious play”.

Implementing other behaviour, other cycles of remembering, has to happen immediately after the release of tensions. A facilitator accepts the “negative” emotional feelings, expressing resistance, letting go, channels these into realizing – re-enacting -, other intentions.

So, I structure a session like a story. Starting with a prologue, individual work. Then looking for support, mentors, creating some first results. Then we dive into the deep: uncertainty, doubts, ambiguity, let’s say VUCA. As we reach the “counter point”, the dark, the unknown, tensions grows. A facilitator supports the development of tension. Big changes require big tensions. Then we get to turning point, the point of “letting go”. Here we usually meet the dark aspects of change: anger, fear, jealousy, sadness.

Then we pass through, somehow finding what somebody called “the goat path”. Or not. That’s all right too. Some times it takes more time, then we expected, fooled by our brain. In the end, I try to establish a new framing of the old patterns.

Change works best in small steps in the right direction

At the end of a session, I ask participants to write down what they intend to do differently tomorrow. Better to take a small step in the right direction, then a big one in the wrong.

Then I ask them: “if you don’t do that, or if it doesn’t work, what could you do then?”. In this I way, I prompt them to pre-evaluate their tensions between intentions and failing, defeat. I’m using the ability of the brain to predict their future. In doing so, I might prevent snapping back to previous, inadequate behaviour with changing actual behaving.

Just a loose remark: the price we pay for being able to put a man on the moon (‘a small step for man, …’) is remembering our losses.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment