Binding Yourself To The Mast

Thales of Miletus 

NLP Training is definitely an odd affair. I'm unsure many students attend their NLP Practitioner course without the intention of ever eventually becoming an NLP Trainer. Come to think of it they're  probably just trying to read the books, learn the 'lingo' and complete the test! The content seems so imposing with such oddities of language including descriptions and explanations that seem to be constructed to foster puzzled frustration. It has always amused me that the body of knowledge which aims to clear up confusing communication by using confusing communication to explain its various components - why complex equivalence or sectional restriction violation?  Perhaps it was all a grand prank by Bandler & Grinder to forever confuse and vex further generations Practitioners?  Then comes Master Practitioner, training bringing further puzzlement, and then finally the Medusa's Cave of Trainers Training. Even once Trainer Training is completed, you're then confronted with the daunting prospect of actually committing to deliver a full NLP Practitioner course, it's enough to make the most sturdy of stomach feel queazy!  

NLP has given me some peculiar gifts, non more so than the clarity of perception to understand not only whats really being said, but also what really isn't being said too. Through NLP I have become fascinated by both epistemology and history, more specifically: philosophical epistemology and alternative history. Those who have attended one my NLP courses will know of my obsession for glancing towards the past, to better understand the future. Perhaps an example of this is the incredible knowledge of astrology by such ancient antiquities as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese and later the Greeks. It is believed that the famous pre-socratic philosopher, Thales of Miletus, correctly predicted a 19 year cyclical solar eclipse in 585bc, defining him as one of the first great Greek Philosophers, alongside Parmenides, Pythagorus, Demarcates et al. For me this prediction is incredible, but the real question should be who taught Thales astrology, and who taught the person who taught Thales, etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseam!

Consider also the fascinating accuracy of earths precessional cycle and its quite extraordinary Platonic year of 25,800 earth years. The term refers to the slow and gradual wobble of earths axis which effect rotates the north star between different stars in different epochs. At present it is Polaris, in around 13,000 years we know it will point to Vega, in fact in many different periods in our history it has pointed to other stars such as Thuban or Denab etc, for periods we are also without a North Star. Now the interesting thing with the Precessional Cycle is its such a slow evolving process, only 1 degree every 72 years, with the full cycle moving through all 12 houses of the zodiac over 25,800 years. Each house of the Zodiac represents 30 degrees, taking 2,160 years to move through each individual house. "We live in the dawn of the age of Aquarius" according to the famous song, this is quite true. During the period of Jesus Christ, around 2000 years ago, Pisces was the zodiacal constellation that was housed during the spring equinox - hence why Christianity is so closely associated with Pisces the Fish. The real question burns bright like the stars above, if the Precessional cycle only moves 1 degree every 72 years, roughly the average age of man, who first noticed this phenomena then setting about learning and passing the knowledge down each generation? Puzzles like this intoxicate my fascination of epistemology & history.

It was inevitable I would eventually become interested in Greek Mythology and it's epistemological link to the modern world. One of my favourite stories from Greek Mythology is of Ulysses encounter with the Sirens. The Sirens were known to sing a song so beautiful that sailors would drown themselves or shipwreck their vessels trying to reach them. It was believed that any man hearing the enchanting song of the Sirens would be unable to stay sane! Ulysses knew of the legend and was determined not to fall foul of the beautiful Sirens, but he also desperately wanted to hear this magical song. To overcome this he had his crew tie and bound him to the mast of the ship with strict orders that they are not release him until safely away from the Sirens song. He also had his crew place bee's wax in their ears so they could not hear the song. Finally, he instructed them that he is not to be released form his rope bindings - no matter what he may plead or demand. Ulysses was able to hear the songs of the sirens and although he screamed to be released his crew stayed the course and he was also able to keep his ship and crew safe. This was by no means the end of his, and his crews, trials and adventures - but I will have to finish that story off another time......

This pact would late become known as Ulysses Contract, a way to ensure you stay the course, come what may. It might be arranging to meet a friend at the gym, and in doing so binding you to the act of going - no matter if you feel like staying on the couch. It might also be telling your friends and family about a specific goal that you're going to complete by a set date, creating real accountability.

My Ulysses Contract was setting the date for my first Practitioner course 2 weeks after finishing my NLP Training in Barcelona last year.  I felt the pressure on the course, knowing failure was not an option. Did I feel ready on the morning of the course? No, not really. Was I under pressure? Yes, very definitely. Holding the attention of students for 6 or 7 days is an incredibly intimidating prospect. Trying to learn and develop 20 or more stories to embed within the course is without doubt challenging at best. Having the courage to stand on the first day trying to recall all of the content and not knowing what the next week holds is enough to make you feel dizzy at best, nauseous at worst. This is before we mention marketing, websites, Google, competing with the 'big boys', pre & post course support, Facebook etc.

All of this evaporates though, the knowledge is there complete with the stories and content. Your confidence grows with each hour as you realise you 'belong' in this arena. The feeling you have observing the growth and development in your students is pride beyond comprehension. You remember 'your' NLP journey and the effect it had on your life, you're now part of other peoples journey - incredible!

All you need to do is bind yourself to the mast and enjoy the ride, come what may

Phil Quirk - Certified ABNLP & ABH Trainer

 @proNLPcoach | www.hbp-nlp.com | facebook/hbp-nlp

What Does 8 Seconds Mean To you?

Life is often about perspective and especially so in performance coaching. Some people find they look at defeats as magnificent learning opportunities that will only improve them in the 'bigger picture', others can't get out of bed for days afterwards replaying the painful experience over and over in their minds. After Lauren Fignon lost the 1989 Tour de France by only 8 seconds he would continually recount the lost 8 seconds over and over in his head. Over time this counting ritual consumed him and he would replay the pain almost daily and at times hourly. Although I acknowledge a huge event in his career he had nonetheless lost perspective on this experience.

Often it is how you look at a situation that defines the meaning you take from it. We coach with the presupposition that you can look at everything from the perspective of a curious child learning. Regardless of your wins or losses the important question is, how much did you learn from the experience? This works for two reasons, the first being when things don't go well it allows you engage your rational and logical thought process and thus attach less emotion to the experience enabling you to be pragmatic; secondly when things go well it keeps you grounded and rational avoiding the potential for arrogance or situational focus loss, once again enabling pragmatism when needed. Which ever race your winning or losing there is always someone winning or losing a bigger race - it's all about the perspective you adopt to view the experience through your frame of reference.

Let me demonstrate....

Read the following extract from top to bottom, as naturally as possible. Once you have done this take an audit of how you feel and also your perspective of this experience.

Today was the absolute worst day ever
And don't try to convince me that
There's something good in every day
Because, when you take a closer look,
This world is a pretty evil place.
Even if
Some goodness does shine through once in a while
Satisfaction and happiness don't last.
And it's not true that
It's all in the mind and heart
Because
True happiness can be obtained
Only if one's surroundings are good
It's not true that good exists
I'm sure you can agree that
The reality
Creates
My attitude
It's all beyond my control
And you'll never in a million years hear me say that
Today was a good day!

Now do the same but read from bottom to the top and rethink your mindset when finished.

Often it is the way we see the world that defines the meaning we attach to an experience, is your glass half empty or half full?

Fighting Natures Hardwiring

Thoughts are an interesting thought; with even more fascinating consequences. Similar to alcohol you can have both positive and negative experiences often within moments of each other and when intoxicated they can govern your behaviour. One second the mind can be flooded with ‘good’ thoughts acting like high performing fuel feeding a Formula 1 engine. The next moment it’s like the fuel has become contaminated with salt water and the engine misfires and grinds to a sudden halt. A stray negative thought at a crucial time can have a devastating consequence to a person’s performance, and often does. Some people wrongly believe these limiting thoughts that contaminate our confidence are unavoidable, they are quite wrong with this thesis.  The brain is like any other muscle in the body and needs exercising, and like the rest of the body the more it is exercised the stronger it becomes. It has always amazed me how little time some athletes dedicate to strengthening their mind, many do not take time to understand their own thoughts which I find confusing.

In Dr Steve Peter's book 'The Chimp Paradox', he explains the primitive parts of our brain, which really are dedicated to preserving our life. The Chimp, which is the limbic part of the brain, often makes decisions that should really be made by our ‘human’ part of the brain. The real paradox is since the cognitive revolution we have accelerated our mental evolution faster than nature. Although our brains can design and build space shuttles we are still mercilessly governed by our primitive hardwiring which protects us from predators that seldom exist in a modern world. These thoughts rattling around our brains, which can be positive or negative, are usually born out of an innate desire to self-preserve. The inner thoughts, which tell us not to expose ourselves with public speaking, are without doubt a self-preservation effect of neurological hardwiring. It is in these moments of self-preservation that the demons can whisper the loudest, and have their most profound effect on performance. Added to this even though we’re hard wired by nature we still find the time to reinforce the message with children, often at a subtle and unconscious level. This precariously balanced confidence is mercilessly subject to external influences, a casual glance by a competitor, an intended word of encouragement from the coach, that is then distorted by the athlete into pressure to perform, and even losing your ‘lucky’ underpants! The ‘human’ part of the brain will think with logic and facts, the ‘chimp’ part of the brain will work with emotion - and is stronger.

Consider for a moment how many ‘emotionally’ led decisions you have made which you very quickly regretted, the chances are you have been ‘hijacked’ by your chimp.

The challenge for our athletes is to understand through education how their minds work, only when you make sense of something can you control the outcome. Under the extreme pressure of competition emotionally fed decisions can sabotage much of the prior preparation of an athlete. The whispers inside quickly become stronger, these whispers can be controlled through logical thinking.

You can ask questions to yourself which will help organise the human brain. What will be the outcome of this decision?  Do I feel rational or am I gripped by emotions, and if so can I consider a logical route to a decision? Will I regret this path should I take it? Is this going to produce the outcome which is best for me in the long term? All of these questions are a presupposition of logical thinking, so even asking them of yourself will lead you into a more rational state of mind.  

Allowing thoughts to sabotage your results is like re-hydrating during a 100-mile bike ride with neat whiskey, performance levels will rapidly degenerate and you’ll definitely regret it for days!!! 

You wouldn’t fuel your body with whiskey so don’t fuel your mind with negativity.

phil.quirk@hbp-training.com

www.hbp-nlp.com

Splitting Hairs - Shackleton Selection Weekend

There is a question I have asked myself repeatedly during the search for the final team member for Charlie Paton's Sub 100 South Pole Team. How can you accurately observe and assess candidates while knowing your presence indirectly influences their behaviour? I’m certain many other selection processes have experienced a similar paradox; you need to see the candidates performing, but while being watched they are likely to modify behaviour to a greater or lesser extent. Having just finished the final selection weekend I think we may have stumbled into the solution to this age old dilemma. 

By chance the final selection weekend left us with 3 similar pairings comprising the final 6, this after the unfortunate withdrawals of Craig & Barry for different reasons. We needed to know how the participants dealt with fatigue, ambiguity, boredom and constant goal shifting, after all these components will be present in the Antarctic with greater consequences.

In this blog I will explain our thought process and also my personal perception of the candidates and their specific behaviours. It is worth emphasising this does not reflect the thoughts of the rest of the selection team.  

It was during the first weekend held at Crickhowell that we noticed very subtle shifts in behaviour when candidates perceived they were under assessment, some did this unconsciously others perhaps more consciously. Some added words to their sentences while others withdrew conversational content and engaged in a ‘poker’ style guarded approach. Some would become more cheerful, others more withdrawn in our presence. I wrestled with ways to dissolve our very obvious contamination of their natural behaviours, which we needed to learn about. Added to this we (myself and Phil Kelly) believed it vital that Charlie should see the candidates at their most vulnerable, which in and of itself was challenging enough to manufacture given their undoubted resilience.  The answer to our challenges actually presented itself in an analogy innocently mentioned to me in passing a few weeks prior to the weekend.

‘It is widely accepted that when a bank robbery takes place with 10 people present the police will be given 11 different stories. The theory being all 10 of the ‘victims’ will tell a different version events, the 11^th story is the ‘true’ account of the security cameras.’

Charlie and me discussing the candidates. 

Here in lay our thought process for the selection weekend. If we removed ourselves from this behavioural equation paradox completely, to the point the candidates thought we were completely detached from their experience, they might act in more natural way - warts and all! Added to this during our small intersections there would be a marked difference in their behaviour that would be very apparent to the members of their own team. This would be the most important ingredient because we weren’t their to 'see' with our own eyes we needed them to 'see' for themselves each others weaknesses; cruel perhaps, clever most certainly.       

As mentioned the final 6 fell into 3 similar pairs. 

The first pair, Tom & Callum, fall into the  Transactional Analysis Driver bracket of ‘Be Strong’, both are capable physically and mentally. They also both occupy an unusual 'Alpha' male trait, which is an almost quiet and understated leadership style, reserved predominately by ‘Be Strong’ drivers with high levels of confidence and humility in my experience. Because of their ‘Be Strong’ drivers neither are particularly comfortable during interviews, perhaps their driver characteristic of ‘less is more’ linguistically doesn’t lend itself naturally to interviews? Interestingly in many ways they are similar to Charlie himself. 

The second pair, Mike & Stuart, share a detailed, logical and analysis orientated thought process. Both enjoy individual sports and I suspect both enjoy the detailed planning associated in their respective past times. In every ‘cerebral’ focussed challenge over the two weekends they out-performed the majority of their counterparts. Stuart solved the ‘Sign lines’ game during the middle of the night with limited sleep and in the shadow of Snowdon. Although the success of the task was actually communicated through Mike who understood Stuart’s logical thought process and was able to explain the plan to the group making him a great conduit for Stuart’s analytical solution. 

The final pair are the ladies, Carrie & Hannah. The other males appeared from the outside to hold great respect for both and neither tries to occupy an obvious default position of women in a social group dominated by men – the ‘mother hen’ role. Physically very different although both incredibly strong of body and mind, they share many personality traits including endless enthusiasm and an enduring sense of humour which perceived from the outside does not irritate other candidates, which can sometimes be the case. What was most evident is something that was missing as opposed to something that was present; there was an absence of internal dialogue from either to compete with the males to ‘prove’ their individual credentials.  My thoughts throughout are this behavioural trait absence, often found with women participating in ‘male’ dominated activities, is a major contributing factor to their acceptance from males within the group alongside their individual personalities. Conversely, it is also a major contributing Human Factors in many mountaineering / ski touring accidents in the sense that to ask for help from male counterparts is considered a confirmation of inferiority in strength, either mentally or physically.   

                                       Stuart and Mike at the second campsite.

During a brief interludes with the teams it was important that we observe as much Meta detail, looking closely at the things usually considered benign and meaningless. You can learn an incredible amount by observing someone erecting a tent at the start of the weekend then watching the difference as fatigue sets in. Where and how do they start the job? How long do they look at the task before they begin the sequence? Which order do they choose their pegs? Which way is the tent facing? Do they think logically or do they rush trying desperately to beat fatigue? How many pauses do they take and how long are the pauses? Do they still retain the ability to conduct concurrent activity or is their capacity to dual task reduced? All of this can be observed in one small job. Our job was to see all of these moments with the help of Craig, Clive and Steve who all contributed outstandingly to the information flow to Charlie. This flow of information was relentless throughout the weekend; the detail of discussion was truly phenomenal to be part of. Furthermore I believe we created an accurate blue print of how to really expose personality in candidates of heightened ability and capacity, not something easily achieved.

The final part of the equation was the need to find out exactly what had happened in our obvious absence. I had suspected that some would become frustrated at the lack of external verification of their efforts. Imagine performing at the top of your game with herculean effort while nobody is watching. Its like scoring the winning goal in the FA cup final with nobody bothering to watch the ball hit the back of the net. Mixing this approach with sleep deprivation and information flow restriction, your left with a pretty potent emotional cauldron, not unlike Polar exploration. Our plan was to ask a core of identical questions on how their teammates performed, Phil Kelly provided much of the questioning while Craig took notes and asked occasional questions alongside Charlie’s input. I was concerned mostly with watching their body language, specifically when we asked how they enjoyed our lack of presence and when rating their teammates. This was uncomfortable for some but nonetheless absolutely vital, without doubt we are jointly responsible for a potential life or death decision. It was very necessary, Phil Kelly made a great analogy of having millions of pounds on the table and trying to separate the pennies – effectively by this stage we were down to splitting hairs. All six were good enough at this point; we knew it and so did they. Because of this a certain amount of clinical harshness was needed, added to this we (the selection team) had a duty to Charlie to help him make the right decision. I don’t think we could of provided him with any more information given the short time we all had together. What is certain is that all 6 were amazing and sometimes the smallest things separate candidates at this level, splitting hairs is easier said than done – believe me!  

Visit our website to see what else we're involved with?  

  

Choosing Your Limits

Have you ever considered why the results you are so motivated to achieve somehow elude you? Perhaps many areas of your life are balanced and productive but for some reason you can't ‘perform’ to the same standard in one single area.

The reason for this could be limiting decisions and limiting beliefs, often traced back to childhood.

Limiting decisions are often parental injunctions expressed during a child’s formative years with the maternal purpose of protection for the child against the pain of disappointment. It’s the reason parents often steer their children towards perceived ‘safer’ careers and away from the more ‘risky’ options available. The child dreaming of becoming an artist is often coerced into finance and the aspirant pop star into towards a career in teaching. Often these subtle and well-intentioned messages hold us back and become limiting beliefs later in life.  For some people these limiting decisions and beliefs prevent them from fulfilling their true potential in life; there will always be the safer path to choose – and they will always choose it.  Limiting beliefs at their most damaging can self sabotage personal happiness and success, without the conscious awareness of the 'victim'. I’m certain as you read this blog you can associate someone, perhaps even yourself, with some of these examples?

A presupposition of HBP-NLP is that we model excellence, being true to this value I will blog about examples of excellence in people. Consider, for a moment, how easy it would have been for Stephen Hawkins to develop limiting decisions and beliefs once he became ill. Although he would surely of experienced many dark and frustrating times the decisions he made and beliefs he held would keep him moving towards his goals. When limiting decisions and beliefs are released a synergistic magnetism occurs which allows the expression of limitless possibility, exemplified by Stephen Hawkins.

One of my favourite stories is of Sylvester Stallone’s struggle to make his dream come true as an actor and film writer. Stallone was given rejection after rejection, at his lowest he was forced to sell his dog for $50 to feed his family. Eventually his script for Rocky, written after watching Weppner v Ali, was accepted with the clause he could not play the lead role. Stallone, although broke, turned down repeated offers, which eventually rose to $400,000 - as long as he played no part in the film. Offer after offer he refused, even though he was financially destitute. Eventually the production company folded to his determination and agreed to let Stallone play the lead, for a reduced $25,000 fee. The rest, as they say, is history.

The common theme between both examples is that the decisions and beliefs of both of these extraordinary men guide them towards their goals with an almost immovable force. Last week, while filming for the upcoming Sub 100 TV Documentary, I met many amazing people with similar frames of reference with regards to decisions and beliefs. Their collective achievements ranged from rowing oceans to climbing Everest to holding the world record for cycling around the world and everything in between!! The most extraordinary thing from my perspective was the strikingly ‘ordinary’ appearance of these amazing people.  Ordinary people can achieve great things; the by-product of simple men with outstanding accomplishment is the development of a great person. It is our belief that the potential for outright greatness exists in us all; some people grasp these fantasies and run free without limits and some simply decide to ‘walk the safe path’. 

Which path will you choose?  

  

#opportunityisnowhere 

The Language of Success

My favourite episode of the Two Ronnie’s is the famous ‘four candles’ sketch when they completely misunderstand each others communication. Amusing as this is I see this problem often in coaching. Linguistics, in my opinion, are one of the most vital aspects of a coaching relationship. Obvious as this might appear, many coaches do not understand the paradox of simplicity and complexity found in our rich language. Further still, they are often unaware of its potential power, both positively and perhaps more importantly negatively.  

Increasingly athletes are turning to a different kind of coach than the traditional ‘man in a tracksuit’ often associated with sport. Whether it is Sky Pro Cycling with Dr Steve Peters (Chimp Paradox), or numerous footballers, golfers, fighters and track stars with NLP coaches, athletes are increasingly utilising psychological performance specialists to enhance their performance. This is not restricted to a sporting arena however, and is certainly not restricted to professional ranks. I have in recent years, noticed a sharp increase in the uptake of coaching in all walks of life. The shared theme of any coaching, regardless of background, is the use of linguistics to create options for the client.  

We spend much of our life conversing in what is known as the ‘surface structure’ of language. Each second millions of pieces of information are channelled through our 5 senses, soaking our neurology constantly. To make sense our brains cleverly reduce this to a manageable amount. A process of deletion, distortion and generalisation followed by a complex neurological filtering process leave us with an internal representation of how we 'see' the world around us. This is paradoxical though  as although we all 'see' the same picture we all delete, distort and generalise different parts of information. Here lies the trap when purchasing 'fork handles', and likewise when coaching; we coach others through the biased lens of our individual worldview.

When coaching it is imperative from the outset to coach from a neutral position. Leaving your model of the world at the door and engaging the client in ‘their’ model of the world is fundamental for success. This simple but effective tip can assist linguistic clarity exponentially and save hours of lost coaching time trying to fit 'your' individual solution to 'their' individual problem. Cast your mind to a time when you have offered some well intentioned advice. Potentially if you had experienced a similar issue you might paste your successful solution for their similar problem? To do this you are making a presupposition that they see the issue the same way as you did; often this is not the case.

So if we talk at the surface level of language how do we dig deeper linguistically?

There is a wonderful methodology in NLP called the Meta Model, this is extremely useful when coaching, let me explain?

When someone deletes, distorts and generalises information linguistically it is often the loss of vital parts of information that need recovering, this is done away from the conscious awareness. Carefully constructed questioning that encourages the person to examine their statement regains this ‘lost’ information. Often when this is done it creates choices that can then be explored by the person being coached. In turn this leads to the generation of solutions and the powerful part is they discover these solutions and therefore retain ownership - it’s about the person being coached, not the coach. Unfortunately though, without an understanding of these linguistic programs both parties can become frustrated with each other.  The coach and the client can’t quite put their fingers on it but both intuitively feel they are not connecting; this is effectively coaching in no-mans land.

In Part 2 of this blog I will explore the Meta Model further and explain how to incorporate simple questioning techniques into your coaching.

By Phil Quirk

Success – The Butterfly Effect?

Recently a good friend of mine conducted a small experiment, for two days he would be as vigilant as possible to any kind of butterflies inhabiting his reality. He would consciously be alert, throughout the two-day period, to the presence of anything relating to butterflies. This experiment, to really test validity, would be conducted in winter, deep in the South Atlantic Ocean! You might ask why would he commit his time to such a ‘meaningless’ and unlikely task? The reason is simple, everything has meaning, and its how you interpret the meaning around you that determines your destination – or is it?

Synchronicity is the belief in NLP that everything is connected in some way; it’s how you use those connections that define your outcomes. Some people see the proverbial glass as half empty, with this model of the world they may never see the opportunities that surround them every second. Others see the glass as half full and are waiting, to pounce at the chance to top the glass up, thus seeing the glass only temporarily half full, with the opportunity to top up coming along at any second. Perspective is everything, and at the same time nothing; in fact does perspective even exist – as we say in NLP ‘the map is not the territory’? The world that I see is not the world you see, and this is the same for everyone. I am unsure whether this statement strengthens or weakens the theory of perspective, it does however make it fascinating. I do know one thing hover, there are things I know I don’t know, which is absolutely fine with me – in fact not knowing is what gives us curiosity and invention. It does, however, lead to an interesting notion, what do really successful people know, which perhaps unsuccessful people don’t?

Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events as meaningfully related, where they are unlikely to be casually related. The subject sees it as a meaningful coincidence as apposed to a chance occurance. This theory was first explored by Carl Jung in the 1920’s; it was not published in a research paper however until 1952 by Wolfgang Pauli.

Confusing as all this may be I think at this point it might be prudent to agree on the elements of the equation that are undeniable.

• ·      We all breathe oxygen.
• ·      We all have similar genetics, which gradually decline with age eventually leading to death.
• ·      We all have the same basic needs to survive.

Outside of these constants I like the idea that the ‘canvass’ is blank, for sure there is an infinite amount of external factors each having a finite influence on our individuality, but if we could influence our destiny by altering our perspective then surely this means we can, by virtue, alter our successfulness? Can I think abundance into my life without taking any physical action, perhaps not? However, if I am ‘looking’ in the right direction I can give myself the best start.

I have heard that when teaching students to down hill mountain bike the single most effective coaching point is ‘look where you want to go’. If your concentration and awareness is placed down the trail and towards your intended goal the bike will naturally ‘flow’ in that direction. Conversely if, for a split second, you focus your intention on the ditch running next to the trail the result is inevitable.

This poses an interesting theory, are life’s losers always looking towards the ditch and are the winners looking down the trail? What are the variables outside of their awareness that influence the individual perspective, and more importantly can you teach people to ‘look where you want to go’.   

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

This is a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and knowledge of reality. With this theory in mind let me reword the metaphor.

“If there is an amazing opportunity and no one sees it, does the opportunity exist?”

Synchronicity teaches us to be mindful of the things right in front of us; the opportunities to achieve abundance surround us all. However all the opportunity in the world is irrelevant without the ability to connect the dots, these dots interpreted through our individual model of the world define our behaviours, in turn these behaviours shape our future.

My friends experiment proved incredibly interesting. First he saw some butterfly tattoos on a women’s hand when boarding his flight, not long after that on the flight there was an article which contained pictures of butterflies, after this when arriving at the airport in the Falkland Islands he saw a painting by a school child of a butterfly on a wall in the airport, lastly on his first night when flicking through some DVD’s he ‘noticed’ one – The Butterfly Effect.

Were these butterflies always there, of course they were, however; had he not ‘noticed’ them they would never have existed in his model of the world – or would they?