Rough, rough draft, but useful even at this point.
Highly functional, useful result
The "feeling" effect, the long term "build"
Use this in any "coaching" conversation
No judgment, only workability
What actually happened "out there"?
What actually happened "in here"?
What else to exclude
A way to differentiate a story
It differentiates that stories are just stories
A story can be described as a story
Anything else is not allowed
HIGHLY FUNCTIONAL, USEFUL RESULT
If we have the objective of moving forward at this time in life, the conversation that would fit that would be the "what happened" conversation - for we need to have that information for us to proceed to doing any problem solving and creating. That conversation is immediately followed by the "what's next" conversation, to complete the attainment of the desired healthy objective.
A high functionality conversation will follow these "what happened" rules.
By functionality, I mean the conversation leads toward achieving a desired result that is healthy and contributory.
A desired result of "getting sympathy" or "support to make me feel better" is not included in this type of conversation as it does not meet the criterion of a healthy, positive desired result that is solely within our power, with no dependency or trying to control another person.
THE "FEELING" EFFECT, THE LONG TERM "BUILD"
The great law or principle here is that when we seek to describe something objectively, we automatially engage the higher brain to do so.
Simply asking yourself to describe what happened is virtually effortless, but with benefits that are both short term and long term.
This will reduce the "feeling" (the alarm) that the lower brain is generating about the possible bad effect, in the future, on oneself.
This decoupling from the lower brain also reduces or stops the disabling effect on the higher brain (which is that effect where in emergency threat situations we have evolved to shut down all unnecessary body components and to engage only those components that help to fight or flee). The decoupling allows us to reason better, make better choices, access our knowledge better, and to exert our will to do what is most helpful.
Note the term "objective". This means without any "subjectivity", which is usually stated in terms involving "feeling". If one slips from being objective back into the thoughts that caused the bad and upsetting feeling, then one re-stimulates that bad feeling - which then "re-impairs" our thinking. This is the reason to discipline yourself to practice strict, pure objectivity. When you are objectively speaking, you are describing not editorializing. You state factually what is observable, not a conclusion that is not backed up by facts.
If the telling of it sounds like what an objective, non-involved, non-judging observer would say, then it is descriptive. If one says "I was awful", that is an evaluation and not an observable fact. "I failed to meet my goal by 30%", that is objective.
If a sequence is being described, then it is an objective fact if you recalled and said "at that point I felt angry because I thought...". But if you said "I was an angry idiot", that is not a truth, but a judgment.
However, there is a long term effect, which is immense. Doing this objective description "builds" over time into a discipline that is a habit (automatic and effortless), one that strengthen our ability to be objective, to solve problems, and to feel good - and to avoid embellishing, dramatizing, altering, etc. Also, it diminishes the pathways where histrionic or "piling upset upon upset" happen, so that the bad feelings will not, on their own, tend to occur because the restimulating thoughts no longer occur (at least not as much).
That discipline and the repeating of its use create confidence and pride in oneself, which is an essential ingredient to self-esteem.
The other side of this is to stop doing those things that are not helpful and are usually harmful, but somehow we keep doing, as a form of insanity where we hope for good results that are different while we are doing the same things that don't work. Telling your "story" in any way, justifying why you are affected and/or are a victim or have a condition caused by someone or something outside you, complaining, talking negative for more than a moment, worrying verbally out loud (a way of re-stimulating the bad feelings and not a way of solving a potential problem!). (See also Releasing Yourself From "The Story". No matter how hard we want to hold onto it, doing so will be liking holding onto a toxic substance; you can address it in a problem solving mode but it is wise, and absolutely critical, to never touch it otherwise.)
WHEN IS IT COMPLAINING VS. JUST TELLING?
If a person puts forth information for a worthy purpose (to get a positive progress from it), then talking of something is just a telling, if it is described as is. If a person just keeps on saying "I think it isn't possible to cure this...", then it is complaining, possible seeking sympathy and support in that complaining - but it certainly is not the lead in to a constructive conversation. It is just a way of continuing a dependence on others for support and approval, rather than being in one's adult.
USE THIS IN ANY "COACHING" CONVERSATION
Any conversation between two people that is aimed at progress should just describe the facts and not look for any sympathy or support in justifying something.
A "coaching" conversation would include any counseling or consulting conversation.
NO JUDGMENT, ONLY WORKABILITY
We are not judging anyone for seeking to get sympathy, we are just suggesting that it might not be workable [productive toward achieving what one desires in terms of what is beneficial and healthy]. (You should know the Workability Versus Good Bad concept.)
The "what happened" conversation does not include any "story" (any additions to what actually happened). (You should know what a story is: Stories Vs. Non-Stories.)
As such, you'll find that a purely "what happened" conversation takes very little time and has super high efficiency. So a sign of one's inserting "story" or any extras is that the conversations are not short.
The one exception to the rule is discussed separately, below.
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED "OUT THERE"?
The "what happened" conversation solely contains descriptions of One can just describe "what occurred", which is only what can objectively be seen. It is free of embellishments or conclusions or anything beyond what actually occurred.
An example would be in the following situation: (A person is observing another person, who is facing to the side.)
"What do you see?"
"I see a person with a nose, a mouth, two ears..."
"Oop, let me stop you there. You are not describing what you actually see, as you can only see one ear. Two ears involves an assumption not actually in evidence."
This might seem extreme, but that is exactly what is needed in the "what happened" discussion: no assumptions or leaps from the facts, even to a reasonable conclusion.
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED "IN HERE"?
The second part that can be in a "what happened" discussion is what is observable about what actually occurred in your mind at the time (nothing added to it in the later conversation).
Remember, it is important to not confuse what occurs in your mind with actual "reality" out there in the real world. All that occurs in the mind is something you constructed from nothing with no real facts to it.
"She came in the room. I could see that she was angry..."
"Oop, let's stop there. You cannot see that she is angry, as that is not 'seeable', so you must be assuming something from the actual cues that exist - and those cues might not indicate what you think they do.
If you would say it accurately this is what would be said:
She walked into the room rapidly. Her cheeks were reddish in color, it appeared that she had a frown on her face... I interpreted that to mean she was angry. I then thought that she would be a threat to me because she might verbally attack me. I felt fear, as my neck tightened and my stomach tensed...
This would be accurate and complete, though another version pure of stories might be:
"She walked into the room. I interpreted that she was angry. I felt fear. I moved into a defensive posture..."
The description is objective, with no assumptions, and includes only what actually occurred: Events "out there", thoughts and emotions and body sensations "in here", but no added conclusions or anything added after the fact that was not true at the time.
WHAT ELSE TO EXCLUDE
The discussion should never include:
A "because" or a justification: I am this way because of my mother, even if it were true, it is a conclusion and a justification. (It actually does not tell the whole story. The mother said in the past "x" and you thought t the time "y" and you concluded "z" is accurate, as it includes an observation of what occurred.
An "untruth": "I'm such a loser." This is an example of a conclusion, not observable in reality. Repeating this provides reinforced programming in one's brain that one is a loser and therefore justified in not taking constructive action or whatever. "I felt like a loser" is also an untruth, since one cannot "feel" (emotion, body sensation) a thought or belief. One, instead, 'thinks' it. "The thought came up that 'I'm such a loser' is accurate. It is presented as just a thought and not a reality and not a validated conclusion.
Any "story" - Remember a story is something made up about something, not just a description of what occurred.
A WAY TO DIFFERENTIATE A STORY
If a person adds any justifying comment to the current conversation, it is a reinforcement of believing a story as if it were fact.
You can tell spot a story by asking the question "what is the purpose of saying that?".
If it contributes to the "what happened" conversation to further getting a good result, then it is "on purpose" and not a story.
If it is an editorial comment or "an in order to", then it is a story. An "in order to" might be something like "to support that it is hopeless" or "to support that I am powerless", such as in "I'll never get any better" or "I'm such a loser". Those are to be totally banned from one's conversations forever and ever, never to be repeated, so that there is no reinforcement of the idea to the primitive brain recordings.
Telling of an incident and then adding while telling it "I feel like such a loser."
Telling of an incident and adding "I'll never get any better."
Attributing any "permanence" to something that is not permanent indicates a story.
"I am a loser" implies a sense of permanence (besides implying resignation!). One can "lose" or "not win" but one cannot be permanently in either mode.
IT DIFFERENTIATES THAT STORIES ARE JUST STORIES
Cleansing the conversation of such toxics and/or distractions has the conversations be much, much more effective.
Another effect is that it stops one from mixing in a story as if it were afact, making it blaringly clearl that is is a story. It is vital that this differentiation of the story from "just the facts" is made, so that one cannot continue to run one's life by stories that keep oneself stuck or not making desired progress.
A STORY CAN BE DESCRIBED AS A STORY
The conversation can describe a story that is involved IF it is useful to provide information that forwards the purpose of the conversation, BUT it must be clearly identified as story (and not at all regarded as a truth).
However, the complete details of the story are seldom needed, so the efficient, effective conversation might only include some brief points about it.
"I made up the story that there was something to be feared. I see now that that was a story and that I need to replace it with something that is true and/or workable."
ANYTHING ELSE IS NOT ALLOWED
If our objective is to make forward progress, then this type of conversation cannot have any other objective.
You might choose to get involved in a dysfunctional conversation to get a result that is not good in the long term.
For example, one might seek "pity" or "sympathy" in a conversation in order to feel supported and comforted. If that is what one wants, then that conversation would be effective for that purpose. However, if it was not followed, relatively soon, with a what happened and a "what's next" conversation, one would only succeed in being stuck at the "I need pity, sympathy, comforting" conversation. (Actually, those are only stories or reasons built on stories.)
A WORD OF CAUTION ON DIVERSIONS
It is tempting to just run a complete dump of all your thoughts and everything that comes up in your head, but this will result in a path that looks like a zig-zag, back and forth and off and on the subject. It is confusing and random and not useful.
Do not add extra commentary that you think of now about what happened.
A person goes astray when they seek to add "analysis", instead of just describing what happened. The analysis comes later, but it cannot be done without first laying out the scientific data that is to be the basis from which to make the analysis.
For instance, these would not be "on point":
"This is because of my childhood, that's why I'm this way (or think this way)."
"Oh, I've been trained in this... and...."
"You must think...I'm an idiot...or...."
"Oh, I know this stuff..." (this is not part of the original happening!)
Making such added remarks can destroy the whole process and use up energy that should be used systematically, instead of blown off randomly.
In other words, stick strictly, very strictly, to the instructions!
For use in problem solving continue on to the next part of the process: What's Next?