Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: Managing Expectations was RE: [XP] Plan vs Reality

Expand Messages
  • Kay A. Pentecost
    Hi, Steve, ... Yeah. You will. It s more than pacing and leading, but that s part of it. ... Okay. There are some people who are so self-unaware that they
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 10, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Steve,

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Steve Bate [mailto:steve@...]
      > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 9:48 PM
      > To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: Managing Expectations was RE: [XP] Plan vs Reality
      > Kay,
      > >...
      > > From: Steve Bate [mailto:steve@...]
      > > > Can you describe a scenario where we could change a customer's
      > > > expectations without their knowledge or consent? I'm
      > assuming you're
      > > > not talking about techniques like hypnosis or Jedi mind tricks. :)
      > >
      > > Ah, but that's just because you don't believe techniques
      > like hypnosis or
      > > Jedi mind tricks exist, or if they do exist that they don't
      > work! <grin>
      > Actually, I do believe they work, more or less. Aren't Jedi
      > mind tricks
      > just a euphemism for pacing and leading in NLP? (Now, /I'm/ the one
      > who'll get into trouble ;-))

      Yeah. You will. It's more than pacing and leading, but that's part of it.

      > > So, no, *without* using that *sort* of technique we can't
      > change someone's
      > > expectations without their knowledge or consent.
      > Again, I even believe this is possible because most people are not
      > very self-aware most of the time.

      Okay. There are some people who are so self-unaware that they are easy to
      "manipulate." I think we're in agreement that people can be influenced.
      And yet, just providing data doesn't do it.

      > We are constantly
      > influenced. Without
      > self-awareness, we don't know how we are being influenced and we have
      > no ability to give consent or not. We just react according to whatever
      > internal program is running at the time.

      Hmmmm. Yeah, that's a good thing to know. Being "awake" is a good thing.

      > > Expectations, like any internally generated concept, are a person's
      > > private variables. We can't change them directly without messing
      > > with their internal code.
      > >
      > > The Expectations are built up by information received by
      > the object, some
      > > of which we do not have access to. It's sort of like:
      > >... [expectation program]
      > > Does that help? (I have no idea what language that might
      > be... I've been
      > > practicing C# but I haven't internalized it yet....
      > When I speak about managing expectations, I don't mean creating
      > expectations in someone else's mind or controlling their expectations,
      > especially not directly.

      Ah! I understand. And yet, when I hear the term "managing expections,"
      that's how I receive it.

      And yes, I know that most people mean what you're saying you mean. But I
      don't hear it that way.

      >Ron's suggestion of the word "guide" is more
      > like what I mean. People we refer to as influential or
      > charismatic are
      > often quite good at guiding others to create specific internal mental
      > states like expectations.

      Because they are subconsciouly (or consciously) using those Jedi mind
      tricks. IMHO.

      > Here's another sobering thought... sometimes our "private data" is
      > more private to us than to other observant people. Again, without
      > self awareness and knowledge we become good targets for the lesser
      > forms of manipulation.

      Oh, God yes. In fact there's a whole sections of things about us that we
      don't know about that other people know!! Scary.

      > >...
      > > > People influence each other continually, both intentionally and
      > > > unintentionally. I'm not sure we can /not/ influence others even
      > > > if we tried. Some forms of intentional influence might be labeled
      > > > as "manipulation", either the good or bad form. It might be
      > > > interesting to discuss where the good/bad boundary lies.
      > >
      > > Ah, you and I are in complete agreement here.
      > >
      > > As for me, I find that I'm frequently deciding where the
      > good/bad boundary
      > > is.
      > >
      > > It shouldn't be necessary to say this, but I'm pretty
      > careful about not
      > > manipulating in a bad way.
      > I am too, but everybody draws the line at somewhat different
      > places. People
      > have an amazing ability to rationalize what you and I would
      > consider bad
      > forms of manipulation. Again, lack of self-awareness helps
      > them not see
      > what they are doing and forget it quickly if they ever catch
      > a glimpse of
      > their behavior.

      Yeah, we're talking about the same thing here.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.