And… my guess in hindsight is that the “internal double crux” technique often led, in practice, to people confusing/overpowering less verbal parts of their mind with more-verbal reasoning, even in cases where the more-verbal reasoning was mistaken.
I’m confused about this. The way I remember it tough was very much explicitly against this, I.e:
Be open to either outcome being right.
Don’t let the verbal part give the non-verbal part a dumb name.
Make space for the non verbal part to express it self in it’s natural modality which is often inner sim.
For me IDC was very helpful to teach me how to listen to my non verbal parts. Reflecting on it, I never spent much time on the actual cruxing. When IDC-ing I mostly spend time on actually hearing both sides. And when all the evidence is out, the outcome is most often obvious.
But it was the IDC lesson and the Focusing lesson that thought me these skills. Actually even more important than the skill was to teach me this possibility.
For me probably the most important CFAR lesson was the noticing and “double-clicking” on intrusion. The one where Anna puts a glass of water on the edge of a table and/or writes expressions with the wrong number of parenthesises.
Do most people come away from a CFAR workshop listening less to their non verbal parts?
I’m not surprised if people listning less to their non verbal parts happens at all. But I would be surprised if that’s the general trend.
On the surface Anna provides one datapoint, which is not much. But the fact that she brings up this datapoint, makes me suspect it’s representative? Is it?
I’m confused about this. The way I remember it tough was very much explicitly against this, I.e:
Be open to either outcome being right.
Don’t let the verbal part give the non-verbal part a dumb name.
Make space for the non verbal part to express it self in it’s natural modality which is often inner sim.
For me IDC was very helpful to teach me how to listen to my non verbal parts. Reflecting on it, I never spent much time on the actual cruxing. When IDC-ing I mostly spend time on actually hearing both sides. And when all the evidence is out, the outcome is most often obvious.
But it was the IDC lesson and the Focusing lesson that thought me these skills. Actually even more important than the skill was to teach me this possibility.
For me probably the most important CFAR lesson was the noticing and “double-clicking” on intrusion. The one where Anna puts a glass of water on the edge of a table and/or writes expressions with the wrong number of parenthesises.
Do most people come away from a CFAR workshop listening less to their non verbal parts?
I’m not surprised if people listning less to their non verbal parts happens at all. But I would be surprised if that’s the general trend.
On the surface Anna provides one datapoint, which is not much. But the fact that she brings up this datapoint, makes me suspect it’s representative? Is it?