Faisal Zabidy dot Com

Banyak yang diperkatakan mengenai kuasa yang boleh dinikmati sekiranya seseorang itu mempunyai pengaruh yang luarbiasa. Jika pandai memukau dengan kata-kata, orang yang tidak berasa yakin pada awalnya, akan menjadi lemah, segala kata-kata hujahan pembangkang anda menjadi tumpul dan tidak bermaya. Orang akan melihat anda sebagai seorang yang berkarisma dan anda secara tidak langsung menjadi inspirasi mereka. Bayangkan jualan anda meningkat mencanak-canak, tidak kisahlah bisnes MLM, unit amanah atau perniagaan-perniagaan yang lain. Bukan itu sahaja, anda akan senang mendominasi isteri, anak dan keluarga mengikut gaya dan cara anda. Terdapat pelbagai cara anda boleh mempengaruh dengan kata-kata. Bidang yang khusus mengenai hal ini yang paling saya suka adalah NEURO LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING (NLP).

NLP menggunakan konsep SLEIGHT OF MOUTH dalam teknik mempengaruhnya. Semestinya setiap tindakan dan pemikiran kita adalah berdasarkan kepercayaan kita terhadap sesuatu perkara. Contohnya kita belajar kerana kita percaya dengan belajar kita akan lulus periksa dan kemudiannya berjaya dalam hidup. Tetapi apa kata apabila saya kata, tahukah anda, orang tak lulus SPM pun boleh berjaya dalam hidup? Mahukah anda belajar susah payah lagi untuk lulus SPM? Mungkin tidak..Ini adalah sebahagian daripada teknik SLEIGHT OF MOUTH ini. Kita mempengaruh dengan menukar kepercayaan seseorang terhadap sesuatu (reframing).

All of our thoughts and actions are undertaken within a frame of reference (of which we may or may not be conscious). Sometimes these frames lock us into very restrictive thinking that limits the choices we have in life. Using reframes, we can assist ourselves and others to get a different perspective on a problem and potentially other possible solutions. Reframing by itself seldom resolves the problem. Reframing offers the potential of “softening up” the problem so that its resolution is more plausible.

Contoh-contoh yang lain

Intent: Focus on the intention behind the statement. This can be done by highlighting their positive intent behind the belief, or by challenging the negative intent.

Consequences: Find a consequence (even an unintended consequence) which results in the belief being challenged.

Another Outcome: Maybe people who XYZ need ABC.

Counterexample: Use an exception where their statement would not be true - which causes the belief that underlies the statement to be questioned.

Apply to self: Turn the comment back to them - by saying (or implying) that the consequence they suggest applies to you, actually applies to them for making the original statement.

Reality strategy: Challenge the belief based on the fact that beliefs arise from certain perceptions. Ultimately, this is about asking how they know their belief is true, or what aspects of the belief are really the issue. (This is like the Metamodel.)

Model of the World: Argue that they are saying that as a metaphor for something else.

Meta frame: Challenge the basis behind the belief, rather than the belief. Suggest that their belief presupposes something.

Change Frame Size: Extend the implications of the belief to a larger (or a smaller) scale; or to a larger (or shorter) time frame.

Hierarchy of Criteria: Challenge the belief based on more important criteria, suggesting something more important they should be considering.

Chunk Down: Look at a specific element and challenge the belief.

Chunk Up: Generalise in order to challenge the belief.

Metaphor/Analogy: Use an example which challenges the belief.

Redefine: Use similar words to say the same thing, ensuring that the implication is changed.[1]

Timeline: Challenge the belief on the basis of how long it holds true. A challenge may initiate: “That’s true today, what about next year? Still true?”

Redirect: Attack the belief by questioning the underlying beneficial motives. Query “Yes, and what positive value leads you to believe that?”

Masalahnya: You’re late again, which means you don’t love me.

• Intent: I’m glad you care enough about me to be concerned about that.
• Consequence: You’re just trying to get me to always fit within your timetable.
• Another Outcome: Would you have preferred me to cancel our dinner, if I knew I was going to be late?
• Counter Example: Have you ever loved someone, but still been late?
• Apply to Self: An accusation like that makes it sound like you don’t love me.
• Reality Strategy: How did you come to that conclusion? Has someone accused you of something similar in the past?
• Model of the World: I’m guessing that it’s not so much that I’m late, but you’re concerned about me not focusing on the little things in our relationship.
• Meta frame: Where did you learn that being on time equates to love?
• Change Frame Size: Most people are late for meetings every day … are you saying that none of them care?
• Hierarchy of Criteria: Isn’t it more important that I actually made the effort to get here, in spite of everything that happened along the way?
• Chunk Down: What about all the times I have been on time?
• Chunk Up: You’re judging an entire relationship based on time-keeping?
• Metaphor/Analogy: Isn’t that like saying if you don’t cook for me every time, you don’t love me?
• Redefine: You’re saying a small delay defines an entire relationship?

Antara laman-laman yang amat berguna untuk membantu anda menambah ilmu mengenai hal ini adalah BLACK BOOK OF PERSUASION, PROJECT COVERT PERSUASION, dan NLP LANGUAGE PATTERNS. Adakah anda sudah bersedia untuk menukar kehidupan anda sekarang juga? Dapatkan kenaikan pangkat, gaji lumayan dan kehidupan yang lebih bermakna. Tentunya nilai ganjaran ini adalah lebih hebat dan kencang dari apa yang anda perlu usahakan sekarang ini!