Role Model

If a role model relationship is to help you think and act more intelligently, you’ll have to choose the right person to emulate—and as is so often the case, science has some surprising and counter-intuitive insights to contribute here. The right role model may not be the brightest light in your field, but rather someone more humanly flawed.

In an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, for example, Jerker Denrell of the University of Oxford and Chengwei Liu of the University of Warwick counsel us to model ourselves on solid, second-tier performers, not the flashy types who come in first. The researchers reported on the results of a game played in many rounds. Over time, the most skilled players came to inhabit a second tier of reliable competence. Those who succeeded spectacularly—who took their places in the first tier—were often not the most skilled, but rather were those who got some lucky breaks early on or took big risks that happened to pay off.

Emulating these top performers would probably lead to disappointment, since imitators would be unlikely to replicate their good fortune. Because luck and risk play a dominant role in extraordinary outcomes, Denrell and Liu write, “extreme success or failure are, at best, only weak signals of skill,” and top performers “should not be imitated or praised.” Better, they advise, to learn from individuals “with high, but not exceptional, performance”—those whose success can be attributed to solid skill and not to a rare lightning strike.

Modeling ourselves on the most accomplished individuals can have another drawback: it can actually make us less motivated. In an article published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, psychologists Diana E. Betz and Denise Sekaquaptewa note that women in STEM fields—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—are often labeled “unfeminine,” an image that may discourage female students from pursuing these fields.

But when the researchers exposed middle-school girls to women who were feminine and successful in STEM fields, the experience actually diminished the girls’ interest in math, depressed their plans to study math, and reduced their expectations of future success. The women’s “combination of femininity and success seemed particularly unattainable to STEM-disidentified girls,” the authors conclude, adding that “gender-neutral STEM role models,” as well as feminine women who were successful in non-STEM fields, did not have this effect.

Does this mean that we have to give up our most illustrious role models? There is a way to gain inspiration from truly exceptional individuals: attend to their failures as well as their successes. This was demonstrated in a study by Huang-Yao Hong of National Chengchi University in Taiwan and Xiaodong Lin-Siegler of Columbia University.

The researchers gave a group of physics students information about the theories of Galileo Galilei, Issac Newton and Albert Einstein. A second group received readings praising the achievements of these scientists. And a third group was given a text that described the thinkers’ struggles. The students who learned about scientists’ struggles developed less-stereotyped images of scientists, became more interested in science, remembered the material better, and did better at complex open-ended problem-solving tasks related to the lesson—while the students who read the achievement-based text actually developed more stereotypical images of scientists.

I’ll leave you with this excerpt from the experimental materials, about the development of Newton’s theory of gravitation: “While the famous fable suggests that Newton was inspired by seeing an apple drop from a tree, it was actually his hard work and inquisitive nature that led to his formulation of a gravitational theory. As he said, ‘I keep the subject constantly before me, till the first dawnings open slowly, by little and little, into the full and clear light.’”

Captains Log: Labor Day

Here are a couple of cool articles!
Haters gonna hate? Why some people are such downers
Laura Poppick LiveScience
“Nah,” “eh,” “no” and “ugh”: These are the familiar sounds of people who don’t seem to like much and conjure negative quips for just about anything. While people with more positive dispositions may try to shake enthusiasm unto these downers, new research helps to explain why this often doesn’t work.
That certain people like more things than others may seem obvious, but, until now, nobody has ever tested whether such dispositions operate as distinct personality traits, separate from other traits such as optimism/pessimism or extroversion/introversion. A team of researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of Pennsylvania have now conducted the first quantitative analysis of dispositional attitude, finding that it is, in fact, distinct from these other traits.
“Optimists tend to have generalized beliefs usually about the future, such as ‘Things are going to turn out well,'” said Justin Hepler, a professor of psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and an author on the study. “We were interested in whether people liked or disliked things, in general, and had people report their attitude about different things.”
Debbie downers
The researchers started with a sample of 1,300 people, and a list of 200 unrelated items, including mullets, sea salt, T-shirts and extinction. They ultimately narrowed down their list to 16 items, and continued their study to include a total of 2,000 participants.
The study subjects — including undergraduate students from the University of Illinois and a broader demographic gathered from an Amazon.com survey service — rated items on the list from 1 to 7, with 1 representing “extremely unfavorable” and 7 representing “extremely favorable.” Subjects also completed other surveys that tested for potentially overlapping traits, such as optimism/pessimism and extroversion/introversion.
The researchers found that people’s dispositional attitudes often correlated with other similar traits, but were still statistically distinct, meaning that some optimists have a tendency to dislike many things, and some pessimists, likewise, might like lots of things.
As with all personality traits, dispositional attitudes develop through a combination of one’s biology and environment. The team has not yet assessed how therapy could help mediate these traits, but suggests that adjusting one’s external stimuli, such as surrounding oneself with positive people, could ultimately sway a person from one side of the spectrum to the other.
Turning a frown upside down
These findings could potentially help people with strongly negative or positive dispositions become aware of their own role in their attitude toward things, and separate this from the inherent quality of those things. For example, a person with a negative disposition might read reviews before watching a movie, focus only on negative reviews, and end up not enjoying the movie either because they were influenced by the negative reviews or simply see themselves as contrary people. Becoming aware of this tendency may help that person assess movies or other things more objectively, Hepler explained.
The team plans to conduct follow-up studies to more closely examine how this distinct personality trait influences behavior.
“If you like something, you are more likely to do it — there’s no surprise there,” Hepler said. “When you combine that with the fact that some people have a tendency to like a lot of things, some people might just do more things overall.”
Participating in more activities could create a feedback loop in which people feel stimulated and enjoy more things, though this idea was not assessed in the study, Hepler said. The team also did not assess the correlation between depression and negative dispositions, but they hope to address this in future research.

Here is Another:
Time on the Brain: How You Are Always Living In the Past, and Other Quirks of Perception
I always knew we humans have a rather tenuous grip on the concept of time, but I never realized quite how tenuous it was until a couple of weeks ago, when I attended a conference on the nature of time organized by the Foundational Questions Institute. This meeting, even more than FQXi’s previous efforts, was a mashup of different disciplines: fundamental physics, philosophy, neuroscience, complexity theory. Crossing academic disciplines may be overrated, as physicist-blogger Sabine Hossenfelder has pointed out, but it sure is fun. Like Sabine, I spend my days thinking about planets, dark matter, black holes—they have become mundane to me. But brains—now there’s something exotic. So I sat rapt during the neuroscientists’ talks as they described how our minds perceive the past, present, and future. “Perceive” maybe isn’t strong enough a word: our minds construct the past, present, and future, and sometimes get it badly wrong.

Neuroscientist Kathleen McDermott of Washington University began by quoting famous memory researcher Endel Tulving, who called our ability to remember the past and to anticipate the future “mental time travel.” You don’t use the phrase “time travel” lightly in front of a group of physicists for whom the concept is not a convenient metaphor but a very real possibility. But when you hear about how our minds glide through time—and how our memory provides a link not only to the past but also to the future—you see Tulving’s point.

McDermott outlined the case of Patient K.C., who has even worse amnesia than the better-known H.M. on whom the film Memento was based. K.C. developed both retrograde and anterograde amnesia from a motorcycle crash in 1981. (The literature doesn’t say whether he was wearing a helmet, but let this be a lesson.) He can’t remember anything that happened more than a few minutes ago. He retains facts and skills, but can’t remember actually doing anything or being anywhere.

Tellingly, not only can he not recall the past, he can’t envision the future. When researchers ask him to picture himself somewhere he might go, he says that all he sees is “a big blankness.” Another patient McDermott has worked with can explain the future in the abstract, but says he can’t imagine himself in it.

To investigate the perception of past and future in people without brain injuries, McDermott did fMRI brain scans of 21 college students, asking them to recall a specific incident in their past and then envision themselves in a specific future scenario. Subjectively, the two feel very different. Yet the scans showed the same patterns of activity. Areas scattered all over the brain lit up; our temporal perception is distributed. As a control, McDermott also asked the students to remember events involving Bill Clinton (presumably, ones they were not personally involved in), and the patterns were very different. In a follow-up study, McDermott asked 27 students to anticipate an event in both a familiar and an unfamiliar place. The brain scan for the familiar one resembled the one for the act of remembering; the unfamiliar one was the odd man out.

The bottom line is that memory is essential to constructing scenarios for ourselves in the future. Anecdotal evidence backs this up. Our ability to project forward and to recollect the past both develop around age 5, and people who are good at remembering also report having vivid thoughts about the future.

McDermott’s colleague Henry Roediger studies metacognition—thinking about thinking. We express varying degrees of confidence in our memories. How we do this is clearly an issue for the court system. The N.J. Supreme Court recently tightened standards on the consideration of eyewitness testimony, citing the risk of false positives. Roediger pointed out that false negatives get less attention, but are equally bad. The worst eyewitnesses are full of passionate intensity, and the best lack all conviction. In both cases, innocent people can be sent to death row while the guilty walk.

Cognitive psychologists find that confidence sometimes correlates with accuracy, sometimes not. Roediger gave volunteers a memory word test. They had to study a list of words; afterwards, they were presented with a series of words and had to indicate whether each had been on the original list. They also had to say how confident they felt about their answer.

Whenever I hear about such tests, I brace myself for bad news. But Roediger said people actually did pretty well, and their confidence scores tracked the accuracy of their recall. Their blind spots were predictable. They systematically messed up, both in recall accuracy and self-assessment, when presented words that weren’t on the list but were synonyms of ones that were. The findings match what happens with eyewitnesses. We get things broadly right, but are easily confused by similar situations and faces.

It’s not that our memory is a glitchy wetware version of computer flash memory; it’s that the computer metaphor just doesn’t apply. Roediger said we store only bits and pieces of what happened—a smattering of impressions we weave together into feels like a seamless narrative. When we retrieve a memory, we also rewrite it, so that the time next we go to remember it, we don’t retrieve the original memory but the last one we recollected. So, each time we tell a story, we embellish it, while remaining genuinely convinced of the veracity of our memories.

So go easy on your friend who caught the 150-pound catfish. He wasn’t consciously lying, which is why he spoke with conviction, but that still doesn’t mean you should swallow his tale. To confuse is human; to accept we confuse, divine.
Speaking of fish, as neuroscientist Malcolm MacIver of Northwestern once put it to me, electric fish are the fruit flies of neuroscience—model organisms for studying how we sense the world. MacIver told the FQXi conference about his astoundingly comprehensive, leave-no-stone-unturned study of a species of Amazonian electric fish, using everything from supercomputer fluid simulations to an working model of the fish (captured in this video) and even an art installation.

The fish generates an electric field of about 1 millivolt per centimeter at a frequency that ranges from 50 to 2000 hertz. Water fleas, its prey, give themselves away by disrupting the field. (You can build a proximity sensor based on this concept. I use one to control the lights in my study.) What gets ichthyologists flapping is that, when this fish is out hunting, it doesn’t swim straight ahead, but at a 30-degree angle to the axis of its body—a seemingly cuckoo behavior that nearly triples the water drag force.

But MacIver demonstrated that the orientation also increases the effective volume of water sensed by the electric field. The fish strikes a balance between mechanical and sensory efficiency. Generalizing this insight, he distinguished between two distinct volumes around an organism: its sensory volume (the region it can scan for prey) and its motor volume (the region it can directly reach). For this fish and most other aquatic animals, the two are comparable in size—there’d be no point in looking out any farther. A fish’s reach does not exceed its grasp.

For land animals, though, things are quite different: their sensory volume is much bigger than their motor volume, since light travels much farther in air than in seawater. So when our ancestors crawled out of the sea, they gained the opportunity to plan their behavior in advance. No longer restricted to reacting to immediate stimuli, they had time to take in the scene and deliberate before moving. Animals that could arbitrage the difference in sensory and motor volumes gained an evolutionary advantage.

MacIver speculated that this set the stage for the evolution of consciousness. After all, what is consciousness, but the ability to make plans and gain some advantage over our environment, rather than lurching from crisis to crisis? Psychologist Bruce Bridgeman proposed this view of consciousness in the early 1990s. MacIver elaborated in a post on his blog, Science Not Fiction, earlier this year.

The fun thing about neuroscience is that you can do the experiments on yourself. David Eagleman of the Baylor College of Medicine proceeded to treat us as his test subjects. By means of several visual illusions, he demonstrated that we are all living in the past: Our consciousness lags 80 milliseconds behind actual events. “When you think an event occurs it has already happened,” Eagleman said.

In one of these illusions, the flash-lag effect, a light flashes when an object moves past it, but we don’t see the two as coincident; there appears to be a slight offset between them. By varying the parameters of the experiment, Eagleman showed that this occurs because the brain tries to reconstruct events retroactively and occasionally gets it wrong. The reason, he suggested, is that our brains seek to create a cohesive picture of the world from stimuli that arrive at a range of times. If you touch your toe and nose at the same time, you feel them at the same time, even though the signal from your nose reaches your brain first. You hear and see a hand clap at the same time, even though auditory processing is faster than visual processing. Our brains also paper over gaps in information, such as eyeblinks. “Your consciousness goes through all the trouble to synchronize things,” Eagleman said. But that means the slowest signal sets the pace.

The cost of hiding the logistical details of perception is that we are always a beat behind. The brain must strike a balance. Cognitive psychologist Alex Holcombe at Sydney has some clever demonstrations showing that certain forms of motion perception take a second or longer to register, and our brains clearly can’t wait that long. Our view of the world takes shape as we watch it.

The 80-millisecond rule plays all sorts of perceptual tricks on us. As long as a hand-clapper is less than 30 meters away, you hear and see the clap happen together. But beyond this distance, the sound arrives more than 80 milliseconds later than the light, and the brain no longer matches sight and sound. What is weird is that the transition is abrupt: by taking a single step away from you, the hand-clapper goes from in sync to out of sync. Similarly, as long as a TV or film soundtrack is synchronized within 80 milliseconds, you won’t notice any lag, but if the delay gets any longer, the two abruptly and maddeningly become disjointed. Events that take place faster than 80 milliseconds fly under the radar of consciousness. A batter swings at a ball before being aware that the pitcher has even throw it.

The cohesiveness of consciousness is essential to our judgments about cause and effect—and, therefore, to our sense of self. In one particularly sneaky experiment, Eagleman and his team asked volunteers to press a button to make a light blink—with a slight delay. After 10 or so presses, people cottoned onto the delay and began to see the blink happen as soon as they pressed the button. Then the experimenters reduced the delay, and people reported that the blink happened before they pressed the button.

Eagleman conjectured that such causal reversals would explain schizophrenia. All of us have an internal monologue, which we safely attribute to ourselves; if we didn’t, we might think of it as an external voice. So Eagleman has begun to run the same button-blink experiment on people diagnosed with schizophrenia. He reported that changing the delay time did not cause them to change their assessment of cause and effect. “They just don’t adjust,” Eagleman said. “They don’t see the illusion. They’re temporally inflexible.” He ventured: “Maybe schizophrenia is fundamentally a disorder of time perception.” If so, it suggests new therapies to cajole the brains of schizophrenic patients into recalibrating their sense of timing.

In the experiment for which Eagleman is best known, he sought to find out why time passes more slowly when we’re scared. Does something really happen in the brain—for instance, the time resolution of perception speeds up—or do we just think it does, in hindsight? After brainstorming scare tactics that probably wouldn’t have passed muster with a university ethics committee, he hit upon asking volunteers to take one of those Freefall or Demon Drop rides you find in amusement parks. They wore a special watch whose digits counted up too quickly for people to register them under normal conditions—thinking that, if perception really did speed up, people would be able to read the digits.

Alas, they couldn’t. Although they consistently reported that the ride took about a third longer than it really did, this must have been a trick of memory; their hyperacuity was a mirage.

Our memory becomes distorted because our brains react more strongly to novelty than to repetition. Eagleman investigated this effect by asking volunteers to estimate the duration of flashes of light; those flashes that were the first in a series, or broke an established pattern, seemed to last longer. This feature of consciousness, like the 80-millisecond rule, explain so much about our daily experience. When we’re sitting through a boring event, it seems to take forever. But when we look back on it, it went by in a flash. Conversely, when you’re doing something exciting, time seems to race by, but when you look back on it, it stretched out. In the first case, there was little to remember, so your brain collapsed the feeling of duration. In the second, there was so much to remember, so the event seemed to expand. Time flies when you’re having fun, but crawls when you recollect in tranquility.

I suspect that this inverse relation in our perception of time also explains how our experiences shift as we age. When you’re a kid, you wake up and say to yourself: “I’ve got a whole day ahead of me. How will I possibly fill it all?” But when you’re an adult, it’s more like: “I’ve got a day ahead of me. How will I possibly get it all done?” And don’t get me started on how people swear that the first year of their baby’s life went by so fast. (A second child is usually enough to disabuse them.)

You can probably tell from my lengthy description of Eagleman’s talk that it seemed to zip by at the time. The physicists in attendance found it one of the highlights of the conference. Not only was it engrossing in its own right, it had some professional interest for them. All theories of physics begin with sense-data. As Eagleman said, “We build our physics on top of our intuitions.”

We also build our physics on a recognition of the limits of perception. The whole point of theories such as relativity is to separate objective features of the world from artifacts of our perspective. One of the most important books of the past two decades on the physics and philosophy of time, Huw Price’s Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point, argues that concepts of cause and effect derive from our experience as agents in the world and may not be a fundamental feature of reality.

Time plays a variety of roles in physics, from defining causal sequences to giving a direction to the unfolding of the universe. How many of these roles are rooted in the contingent ways our brains perceive time? How might an alien being, who perceives time in a radically different way, formulate physics?

Captain’s Log

Hi

I said to you I was going to talk about some of the current research into NLP and subconscious communication.  As many of you know, I do not like to teach anything I have not done and worked with myself, I have little use for theory, or things that work in a classroom, or seminar room, but do not translate into real world, hands on, easy to apply techniques and information. So I will give you the info and then an example. Find the examples.

The Six Top Rules for getting people to take action, how to motivate them subconsciously.

1.  Authority. The first thing to get others to want to follow you is to prove you’re an authority in the area you are talking about. This is especially important if they, the audience does not know you.  Articles, books, awards, education all build authority and add credibility. At one time (and still somewhat) the internet blurred who was a true authority. Just stating it on a site seemed to work, and still does to an extent, but the public is “getting wise” to the instant experts.

So are you an authority at what you are asking them to do?  Do you have the credibility needed?

2. Social Proof. Are others doing what you what you are asking them to do, can you use this as evidence of social proof, and also your authority status? Testimonials work for this. As you know in my 30 years doing this I have taught thousands how to use NLP and Hypnosis.

3. Reciprocity. We give back (money, time) to those that give us something. Think of the Free return mailing labels you get from charities, how many times do you send them money? Isn’t his type of information, that I am giving you freely, useful?

4. Consistency. People like others to be consistent, and they want to be consistent with what they say and do. If you can get them start an action, they will want to follow their action.

5. Scarcity. What you have has to be hard to get, scarce, and not for everyone. This also build pressure to not miss out. As you know my types of trainings are not for everyone, only those that have the courage to really take action.

6. Likeability. We want to do business (relationships) long term with people we like. If you want long term ongoing relationships, you need to be likeable to that group of people.

I know that you, like me, can use the above in your daily lives, but only you can convince yourself , that you, like the thousands I have worked with deserve to join the elite in our field.

Five Top Words that help people respond favorably.

1. You. People want the info about them, how can it help them, is it for them. If you start to say I replace it with YOU, turn it about them, their wants, needs, desires.

2. Because. People want some type of reason to take your suggestions, if you say because and then state why, compliance goes up greatly.

3. Instantly. Let’s face it we want it now, and our society is moving faster all the time. The quicker you can get them the result, the better.

4. New. In our current information age, we want the newest stuff and information. Also It changes quickly, so we want the most recent, or at least a newer version.

5. Free. We all want something free. Free bonus, free upgrades, It also adds to the because and ties into reciprocity factor.

Enjoy and use this information.

As many of you know I am offering a new Webinar.

Fat Loss for The Helping Professional.

As many already know I have been doing this for 30 years and have helped thousands and have noticed that many in our field can help others lose weight, but are stuck ourselves. I know that you, like me, have experienced those few pounds here and there. Has it happened to you where you had to lie on a bed to zip your pants up? That was my turning point; it made reexamine what I was doing. Your knowledge can not help you change unless you have the correct information. I have new information for you and because I want you to be the best I am offering this class at a deep, an almost free level.  It is not for everybody.

You can watch the webinar about it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTeiD6lAmZ4

The sign up here and then you will receive an email from me later with sign in data and your first task. It not for everyone, only those that have the courage to change, and really want to!

http://www.nlptoday.com/CubeCart/index.php?_a=category&cat_id=17

Yes its $814 worth of information for $97!

 

Also I am offering a FREE webinar on Addictions. I hope you can join me.

How to Work With Addictions! Learn The Secrets of Helping Others Stop The Cycle of Death!
Join us for a Webinar on May 15
                                                                                                                                                     
Space is limited.
Reserve your Webinar seat now at:
https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/855948838
How To Work With Addictions, How To Stop the Cycle of death by slow painful addictions.  You will instantly get insights into this problem including some NEW  research into the process of recovery!
All serious hypnotists and NLPers need this information, but few have it. You Say you want to help others? Now is the time!

 

Title: How to Work With Addictions! Learn The Secrets of Helping Others Stop The Cycle of Death!
Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Time: 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM EDT

 

Until next Time, Gods Speed to you.

Star Trek And New Ideas

Star Trek and Accepting New ideas! Star Trek and Accepting New ideas!

Well just saw the new Star Trek and loved it. I have seen every Trek movie at the opening. The whole Trek universe is a great metaphor as you all know. Duty, Fellowship, friendship, loyalty, honor and sacrifice are the message taught in story form. Of course they use the archetypes we find throughout history. The fearless warrior leader (Kirk) The scientist thinker (Spock), the healer (Bones) the fixer (Scotty), the young student learners (Chekov and Sulu), the great communicator (Uhura) and of course bad guys. Good overcomes evil, treasonous plots uncovered and stopped, and loyalty and friendship endures. If you want to become a hypnotic story teller these types of stories teach the basics.

The most interesting thing to me is the ongoing whining from the “Old Guard” who complain: “Its not the original”, “It’s not as PURE” and on and on. Well I love the original and the reboot and understand that to go after a new market. Let’s face it; the “Hard Core Originals” are not the target market. To appeal to the new customers, one must adapt to the changing market place and give them what they want, in a style they want.

How many of us fall into this thinking? We hear it in the NLP and Hypnosis world. It is the metaphorical analogy of the changing of the guard. The old guard must adapt and change to stay with the current trends.

I am starting to offer new classes in new ways in response to what people have been requesting.

The webinar home based class “How To create A Six Figure Cash Hypnosis/NLP Practice” went over great and I will be offering it again real soon watch for details, in the meantime watch the overview here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoWV81taYzw

The first upcoming class “Ultimate Fat Loss For Professionals” (Why do those who know more, Nurses, hypnotists, NLPers, Nutritionists have weight issues?) will start May 28, 2013 at 9 AM  ET for 4 weeks

Sign up here:   http://www.nlptoday.com/CubeCart/index.php?_a=product&product_id=549

The  other  class “Alcohol and Addiction Solution”

Watch the overview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N9pUcCmlZQ

Here is what the site s will look like: http://alcoholandaddictionsolution.com/members/

Until next time enjoy and Gods Speed!

Dr. Will Horton

Star Trek and New Ideas

Star Trek and Accepting New ideas! Star Trek and Accepting New ideas!

Well just saw the new Star Trek and loved it. I have seen every Trek movie at the opening. The whole Trek universe is a great metaphor as you all know. Duty, Fellowship, friendship, loyalty, honor and sacrifice are the message taught in story form. Of course they use the archetypes we find throughout history. The fearless warrior leader (Kirk) The scientist thinker (Spock), the healer (Bones) the fixer (Scotty), the young student learners (Chekov and Sulu), the great communicator (Uhura) and of course bad guys. Good overcomes evil, treasonous plots uncovered and stopped, and loyalty and friendship endures. If you want to become a hypnotic story teller these types of stories teach the basics.

The most interesting thing to me is the ongoing whining from the “Old Guard” who complain: “Its not the original”, “It’s not as PURE” and on and on. Well I love the original and the reboot and understand that to go after a new market. Let’s face it; the “Hard Core Originals” are not the target market. To appeal to the new customers, one must adapt to the changing market place and give them what they want, in a style they want.

How many of us fall into this thinking? We hear it in the NLP and Hypnosis world. It is the metaphorical analogy of the changing of the guard. The old guard must adapt and change to stay with the current trends.

I am starting to offer new classes in new ways in response to what people have been requesting.

The webinar home based class “How To create A Six Figure Cash Hypnosis/NLP Practice” went over great and I will be offering it again real soon watch for details, in the meantime watch the overview here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoWV81taYzw

The first upcoming class “Ultimate Fat Loss For Professionals” (Why do those who know more, Nurses, hypnotists, NLPers, Nutritionists have weight issues?) will start May 28, 2013 at 9 AM  ET for 4 weeks

Sign up here:   http://www.nlptoday.com/CubeCart/index.php?_a=product&product_id=549

The  other  class “Alcohol and Addiction Solution”

Watch the overview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N9pUcCmlZQ

Here is what the site s will look like: http://alcoholandaddictionsolution.com/members/

Until next time enjoy and Gods Speed!

Dr. Will Horton