Friday, December 07, 2007


Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

Dear Readers:

Two popular techniques utilized by interrogators are the "interruption technique", and the "confusion technique". These are most frequently used to 1) weaken the will of a victim, 2) get him/ her to volunteer any information in order to stop the mental onslaught, 3) force him/ her to give an unqualified, incriminating answer, and, of course, to force a confession by leading the victim down a rapid-fire path of pseudo- logic. These techniques are favored by law enforcement officials where conventional torture or vigorous physical interrogation is not an option.

In the first case, you (the victim) are asked a question, interrupted suddenly in the middle of your answer, and asked another question, usually unrelated to the previous one. You are kept off-balance, frustrated at your inability to get a single point across, confused in terms of your recollection of factual information and chronologies. the hope here is that you will be so desperate to be heard that you will make any great revelatory statement in order to stop the barrage. Usually it will be something that the interrogator did not previously know, stated for shock value or in order to get sufficient respect that the interruptions will stop.. And usually it is something you'll regret having said.

This situation can be dealt with in several ways, either alone or in a combination. You must be calm and polite in order to be effective at this. Your responses should be as follows (if you are forced to respond):

  • I'm sorry... could you repeat that last question again?

  • Let me answer that last question before we go on to this one.

  • Let me think about that for a few moments. You wouldn't want me to give you the wrong information, would you?

  • You've got me so confused that I can't seem to collect my thoughts.

  • I'm afraid that I don't fully understand the question. Could you clarify it for me?

  • I'm so confused, I can't seem to get anything straight in my mind. May I have a glass of water?

  • Please stop asking me questions if you won't let me answer them.

Some other alternatives, also crafted to disturb the interrogator's rhythm, and diffuse his/ her focus include off-topic questions or comments such as (and I am not kidding):

  • Where did you get that tie? I think I have one just like it....

  • Who do you think is going to win the ...

  • Do you smell some kind of a gas leak? Smell that? Can you smell it?

  • Where were you born?

  • Is that a _________accent that I detect?

  • Why did you decide to become a _____________?

  • Are you okay? You look very pale. Did you eat something that made you feel sick?

  • I have to use the bathroom. It's going to be an emergency.

  • What time is it?

  • Can I have a pen and pad to sketch on? It might help me think.

  • What are you trying to get me to say, anyway? C'mon...let's get to the bottom line.

  • I have a cold, and my ears are clogged. Can you please speak slower and louder?

  • Don't you guys ever get tired? I know that I'm exhausted already!

It is also helpful to hum, or tap your foot on the floor, or rap your fingers on the desk. All of these serve to interfere with the interrogator's concentration and continuity. Reverse the curse.


Douglas Castle

Wednesday, November 07, 2007


Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

Dear Friends (and Worthy Opponents):

Every sentient creature (i.e., virus, protozoan, malignant tumor, weasel, human, family, company, religious group, government agency or organization of any sort) is possessed of a compulsion to grow. Whether the impetus is species survival, dynastic permanence, the lust for conquest, greed for acquisition, insatiable appetite, increased size and commensurate strength, pure egomania --the compulsion is there. Organizations are indeed creatures -- and they have minds, and agendas, and, yes....compulsions. There is also a deeply ingrained and universal growth propellant: the fearful notion that stagnation (e.g., non-growth) leads to death.

Certain considerations may parametrically govern organizational or social movement growth, and the manner in which growth can or should preferably be achieved. These have to with such constraints as 1) quality standards, 2) availability of and access to candidates for recruitment, 3) ease of recruitment process, 4) ease of training, 5) time required to train, 6) "dead links" (where a recruit does not continue the recruitment process through resignation, death or disability, and becomes, in effect, a "dead end", 7) "lost links" (where a recruit resigns, or leaves the program or organization), and 8) average downline recruitment rate (e.g., how many new recruits an "average" given recruit can directly acquire for the organization or social movement).

These same mathematical principles are at play in population growth, the spread of infectious diseases, Multi-Level Marketing programs, those annoying chain letters, compound interest, and a host of natural phenomena. They have been studied and written about by the likes of Malthus, Einstein, Fibonacci, Chrichton....from philosophers, to mathematicians, to economists to science fiction writers.

The math is very simple if there are no dead links or lost links:

1) If the reproduction/replication/downline recruitment rate is 2, then 1 original member begets two, 2 beget 4, 4 beget 8, and so forth. In five generations, the total population will be 31 members.

2) If the reproduction/replication/downline recruitment rate is 2, but there are 5 original members, the above result is simply multiplied by 5. In five generations, the total population will be 155 members.

3) If the reproduction/replication/downline recruitment rate is 3, then 1 original member begets three, 3 beget 9, 9 beget 27, and so forth. In five generations, the total population will be 121 members.

4) If the reproduction/replication/downline recruitment rate is 3, but there are 5 original members, the above result is simply multiplied by 5. In five generations, the total population will be 605 members.

The dynamics of the process are explosive. Do you remember the movie PAY IT FORWARD?

You might wish to take a look at to see this in greater detail.

Getting to the task of growing an organization, enterprise, social movement, or just spreading a message, the following steps and considerations are required:

1. Establish your precise program and platform, simplify it, quantify it and codify it;

2. Establish minimal quality control standards for recruits;

3. Establish, unify and energize the largest original core group;

4. Create mandates (negative reinforcement) and incentives (positive reinforcement) for recruitment, and for retention of recruits;

5. Establish and codify your methods for recruitment, and train all recruits -- you are teaching teachers to teach subsequent teachers;

6. Establish a realistic replication rate. If you challenge each member to proselytize 2 members, your growth rate is going to be very slow. If you challenge each member to proselytize 20 members, you are being wholly unrealistic. THE OPTIMAL REPLICATION NUMBERS ARE 3, 5 and 7. If you tell each member to recruit (identify, pursuade, train, manage and retain) 5 new members, you are dealing with a manageable number, in that each person generally has five persons wityhin his or her social or business circle who are like-minded and viable.

7. Keep track of your metrics in terms of who recruited whom;

8. Continually promote the issue and importance of recruitment, and constantly reinforce recruitment training;

9. Open up channels of communication from the core group all the way down to the newest recruits. Use these channels. They are socially and emotionally adhesive.


Douglas Castle

Saturday, September 01, 2007


Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

Dear Friends:

The question that you are begging to ask is : "HAVE I EVER BEEN BRAINWASHED?" And, of course, there is its cousin (questions occasionally have cousins)..."HOW CAN I TELL WHETHER OR NOT I'VE BEEN BRAINWASHED?" The general answer is, that, to a certain extent, each of us has indeed been somewhat brainwashed, simply by virtue of our exposure to other persons in our lives, and through the media. If you refine the question to include only deliberate, hostile brainwashing (e.g., the type characterized in the previous two posts), then there are some signs to look for which may be indicative of the brainwashing experience.

1. Missing Time -- The phenomenon of realizing that you have spent hours or days for which you cannot seem to account.

2. Phobias -- Inexplicable fears which do not seem to be based upon memories of negative prior experiences.

3. Recurring Nightmares -- Frightening dreams with consistent thematic content.

4. Compulsions -- Many persons engage in compulsive behaviors and rituals to some extent. But if you are compelled to engage in a ritual or repetitive type of conduct that involves something that cannot simply be rationalized by typical Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), then you may be reacting to a deeply implanted suggestion.

5. Insensitivity to Physical Pain or Extreme Temperatures -- This is a very common characteristic associated with a response to profound physical torture accompanying combative brainwashing.

6. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder -- If you are significantly symptomatic for PTSD, but completely unable to identify the causal experience or stressor/s which brought it into being, you might have suffered some deeply-embedded psychological manipulation.

There are many other behaviors which may be symptomatic of brainwashing. Victims of brainwashing, in the most unfortunate circumstances, become psychotic or suicidal. One analogy which I particularly like is that a brainwashed person is like a computer which has been invaded by a virus or "worm" which causes robotic enslavement (e.g., where the machine becomes a "drone" serving a remote master), and which ultimately causes the hard drive to burn itself up.

The human psyche is very complex and very delicate. Brainwashing invariably involves the insertion, by trickery or force, of programming which is inconsistent with the basic nature of the victim's personality. This prolonged, unresolved conflict is what ultimately precipitates psychosis and suicidality. Forced, brutal re-programming of the human mind will always have significant behavioral consequences. There is a great difference between being convinced and being brainwashed -- you become convinced voluntarily.


Douglas Castle

Sunday, August 19, 2007


Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

Dear Friends:

An emotionally "broken" person is inordinately suggestible. Without any firm conviction about anything, filled with doubt and confusion, emotionally barren and distraught, sensorially-deprived, the subject of an expertly-orchestrated "breakdown" is completely adrift in the rapids, desperate for company, a sense of identity...a need for social connection and communion. Any branch offered will be viewed as salvation for a drowning, helpless and hopeless individual -- even if the branch is covered with thorns or leeches. The operator must be the first to offer to offer a branch to the subject. And the subject will view that branch as a godsend; its provider as a savior. Since all previous beliefs and long-held "truths" have been either eradicated or cast into mortal doubt, the subject feels spiritually empty vessel. That empty vessel, like any vacuum in theory, craves fullness and purpose. Just as fascinating (and significant) is that re-programming will be unopposed by any previous morals, convictions or beliefs.

Re-programming must be done quickly, and definitively. It must be task-oriented, with a mission clearly stated as a command, or as a series of commands. Briefer statements are more powerful. Action-oriented statements, rather than more complex ideological ones, are more readily absorbed. Repetition of the command, followed by requesting the visible and proactive acknowledgement and agreement of the subject (with a vigorous nodding of the head) will embed the programming more deeply. Mission becomes mantra, and the subject becomes a willing instrument of the operator. Simple compliments, such as "Very good!"..."You've done fabulously!"... "You'll be doing a great thing!"...especially if accompanied by friendly physical contact (a clap on the shoulder, or a handshake, with a smile) will further secure the programming. The equivalent of a slave - master relationship implicitly develops.

Military recruits are broken down and re-programmed to follow orders without hesitation or moral judgment in this manner. Political prisoners are made to recant beliefs in this manner. Religious converts are sent on crusades and jihads by this approach. False confessions are obtained from "suspects" by law enforcement officials as a matter of routine, using variations on this method. Fanatical religious and sociopathic cults are built upon this methodology. Contract killers are programmed to believe that they are merely doing a job, and that their victims are not even human beings.

Sadly, the only way to re-program a subject after the insertion and embedding of a new program, if through another breakdown, and re-programming. Most subjects of brainwashing believe that they are doing what they are doing as a result of a voluntary and informed free choice. That makes them all the more difficult to contend with. Subjects are hesitant to believe or accept the information that they have, in fact, been brainwashed, and are victims of mind control. But they are. Reprogrammed persons are deadly instruments in the hands of malevolent operators.

Some common signs of a re-programmed personality include the following: a refusal to entertain objections, questions or alternative views; secretiveness; difficulty maintaining eye contact; frequent time spent alone; a fanatical dedication to certain ideas or dogma; a seeming lack of compassion or engagability in ordinary dialogue or social situations; a loss of a sense of humor; occasional (but extreme) mood swings; and an insensitivity to physical pain. Many of these subjects present apparent symptoms of psychosis, Borderline Personality Disorder; Sadism; Obessive-Compulsive Disorder; extreme sociopathy or psychopathy; an unusually passive attitude (the "zombie" syndrome), and Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome...they have been ravaged and victimized.

These persons may be dangerous to others, and to themselves.

Will will continue our discussion of this topic in Part 3.


Douglas Castle

Tuesday, August 07, 2007


Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

Dear Friends:

It is a fact: People are fascinated by the subject of brainwashing, and they love to discuss it. This is the first of a three-part series of articles on Brainwashing Basics. These techniques are used, to some extent, by every organization which requires cooperation or obedience of its employees. followers, or soldiers. Sometimes it is employed with great subtlety, and sometimes it is done brutally, depending upon the circumstances and the available time to achieve a behavior modification result. The information which I am about to provide may be used in either one of two ways -- It can be used as an instruction manual or primer to effect change in others (e.g., "subjects"), or it can be used as an early warning system to be able to alert you as to when you are being treated as a subject, and being subjected to brainwashing techniques. I will make no moral judgment here, and the information is ethically neutral...merely provided for educational and entertainment purposes. Remember The Manchurian Candidate?...Jacob's Ladder?.....The Bourne Identity? How about Little Nikita?.....Full Metal Jacket? How about every police show where a suspect is being aggressively questioned in a small room? How about the articles you've read about cults? How about the recruitment of the masses by fundamentalist preachers (whether in madrassas in Afghanistan or in revivalist tents in the U.S. countryside)? Brainwashing, with its uses, and its effects, is everywhere. It is an application of human psychology and physiology.

Brainwashing is a crude and nefarious relative of hypnosis -- the latter is quite benign and voluntary, while the former can be deadly and operates in stealth; often, on many different levels. Brainwashing is an integral component of preparing soldiers for battle, forcing a fanatical religious conversion, obtaining a false confession, of espionage, of a crazed lynch mob, and the mainstay of many abusive slave-master relationships and other unhealthy interpersonal co-dependencies.


For any brainwashing to work, the brain slate must be exposed and wiped clean while susceptible and defenseless. Implanting a new or radical idea must be done when resistance is at a minimum. A breakdown must first be initiated. Here are the common means of accomplishing this:

  • Work on inciting the emotions of insecurity, fear, anger, hatred or excitement. As these emotions are inflamed, judgment is impaired and suggestibility is increased;

  • Use physiological weapons, such as fasting, radical or high-sugar diets, physical discomfort (cramped quarters, extreme cold, electric shock, intense lighting, certain repetitive or frightening noises, et cetera), chanting, uncomfortable exercise postures, or through the use of drugs;

  • Create a sense of timelessness and monotonony;

  • Impose sensory deprivation and isolation;

  • Traumatize the psyche or the body by use of shocking ("disillusioning") information in the form of a series of horrific revelations, or by inducing dizziness and vertigo though blindfolding, hooding and tossing the subject about erratically and unpredictably.

Once an individual has lost all sense of control, all sense of perception and the ability to think reasonably or rationally, he is "broken". The handler's job is to reprogram the broken subject while the subject is still freshly broken. To be continued...


Douglas Castle


Wednesday, June 27, 2007


Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

Dear Friends:

The perception of power is, to a great extent, power itself. Certain behaviors are almost instinctively associated with power, while others are associated with weakness, cowardice, or insecurity. Understanding these behaviors is extraordinarily useful -- not merely for "sizing up" a prospective acquaintance (either friend or adversary), but for projecting a certain image which may be helpful for your success, or, in the extreme case, vital to your survival. Persons who look like they are expecting to be victimized are usually a predator's first target choice. Persons who walk with confidence, purposefulness and "dangerous determination" (more on this later) are less likely to be targets of abuse...whether it is a parking lot mugging, or a verbal dressing down by a bully-boss at the office.

Leaders exude personal confidence and power by walking slowly, with determination, and occasionally making silent eye contact (for only an instant) with someone along the way. They do not wander -- they know where they are going. They do not run -- they are fearless, and the world is waiting for them, and on their terms. Worker bees and clerks are always running and rushing, in much the same fashion as a frightened person will run at the first hint of trouble.

A clever song written and performed by Sting (formerly of the Police, but now merely a civilian), An Englishman In New York, states it beautifully: "An Englishman never runs." The perception is that if a person is running, he or she is under the command or control of either another person, or the circumstances in context.

Unless you are competing in a race, do not run. Better by far to swagger, and casually look about you, than to run. When someone calls you over (e.g., summons you in a situation where you cannot comfortably get him or her to walk over to you, for example, when being introduced to a third party) walk slowly, without eagerness. Never appear as though you are reacting to a command...always appear to be in control, and at your own choice.

It is a good idea to observe and apply the above pattern. It will assist you in determining who is important, and who isn't. More importantly, it will help you to portray yourself to your best advantage.


Douglas Castle

Tuesday, May 22, 2007


Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

Dear Friends:

The ultimate powers that can be wielded by an individual can be distilled down to only two: the power to create and the power to destroy.

In the legendary underworld of the Colombian drug cartels, the proverbial "offer that you cannot refuse" is stated plainly... plata o plomo...literally "silver or lead." Either be paid well to do something, or be shot for failing to comply. The stark difference between the outcomes, depending upon the choice made by the sweating offerree, makes the significance and urgency of the offer more graphically clear.

Many times it means the choice between doing something morally reprehensible and being well paid for your demoralizing compromise of ethics held dear, or receiving a bullet in the brain. A critical factor in making this motivating choice effective is the offeree's perception of the offeror's ability and willingness to absolutely carry through on the implicit threat. At best, this is slightly better than a Hobson's choice; at worst, it has propelled more than a few ardent moralists to suicide. But then, most offerees do not have either the moral conviction or the steely courage required to terminate their lives (as miserable as they may be) in the interest of moral integrity.

Without moralizing, and viewing these two opposite powers simply as tools for persuasion and accomplishment, it is optimal to have both in the Commander's arsenal. If given a choice of only one power, most people, thinking the worst of themselves and of the entire species, would prefer to have the power to destroy. This is not a sad commentary on human nature, so much as a choice influenced by simple, rational and economic thought. IT IS CHEAPER, FASTER AND EASIER TO WIELD A WRECKING BALL THAN IT IS TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A BUILDING. Also, it requires far less in the way of talent or training.

Generalizing further, it is much easier to be a prosecutor or a critic than an entrepreneur or an artist. It is far more challenging to revive a dying person than it is to simply destroy a living one. The power to destroy invariably trumps the power to create, and the threat of destruction is always more potent as an inducement to behavior than the promise or possibility of creation.

Every bully on the beach knows that it is much easier to step on someone's sand castle than it is to spend hours in the hot sun building one. And bouncers at bars are not generally 5' 7" martial arts experts (think of the movie "ROAD HOUSE," starring Patrick Swayze) who may have to actually prove themselves in a rough-and-tumble fight -- they are usually big, surly-looking fellows who pose a sufficient perceptual manace that they will probably not be tested by some inebriated patron with a need to assert himself.

As long as the default setting on most human beings is cowardice, a threat will always be a more potent motivator than an opportunity.

If you don't believe this, just observe government and international politics. Many negotiations are actually thinly-veiled threats of destruction or terrorism.

Bear this in mind when assessing your options in any negotiation, and in sizing up any potential adversary.


Douglas Castle

Thursday, May 03, 2007


Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

Dear Friends:

There are volumes of treatises written and seminars offered on the "Power Of Persuasion", "Making Friends and Influencing People," and numerous other variations on the general themes of cultivating friends, the art of networking, developing contacts, diplomacy and closing sales. The underlying presumption is that if we can reasonably and compassionately counter various objections and engender rapport with otherwise neutral or slightly undecided persons, we can "push them to the point of saying 'yes'", and then we can be victorious in in our social lives and professional careers. The art of persuasion, like the art of negotiation, is indisputably important in gaining command and control over any social situation. Being able to resolve conflicts either through logical compromise or circumstantial domination is extraordinarily useful. Now for the surprise:

The key to the utilization of any of these persuasion strategies is not its mastery, per is in determining whether or not the strategy is appropriate for use given the 1) subject individual, and 2) the circumstances. And there is always the additional constraint of time; the ever-present clock ticking ceaselessly, in the background. There are instances when the deployment of a persuasion strategy is a counterproductive activity, and a waste of your valuable time and resources.

Categorize your subject individual, prior to engaging in any strategy, into one of the three following groups:

1. Natural Allies -- those persons who want what you want, and have the inclination, urgency and resources to cooperate. You can "feel" an affinity with these persons much of the time.

2. Neutral Parties -- undecided but potentially malleable persons who may be receptive, but require some convincing or comfort in order to to see your point of view.

3. Natural Enemies -- those persons who stand to benefit (in some manner) by your failure, loss, or detriment. You can "feel" an adversarial or menacing energy when you are in contact with these persons.

In making a determination, your instincts and intuition will be key. When in doubt, categorize negatively. Unless you are under the influence of a distortional pathology (i.e. paranoid delusions, hallucinations, phobias, watching too much television, and the like), the very spectre of doubt is, in and of itself, a warning sign. Err on the side of caution and self-protection.

After having made your determination, allocate your time with the subject individual based upon the following "rule of thumb" (for lack of a better, or more appropriate digit):

Spend 80% of your time finding and courting your Natural Allies ;

Spend 20% of your time using your persuasive skills on Neutral Parties -- if they are receptive and are easily converted, recategorize them as Natural Allies. If not, cease investing any time, and be on the lookout for a prospective adversary in the future:

SPEND 0% OF YOUR TIME (e.g., NONE!) TRYING TO CONVERT YOUR NATURAL ENEMIES INTO ALLIES OR FRIENDS. If you cannot effectively eliminate or neutralize your enemy (there are legal implications, so be careful), his or her only utility to you is as a deterrent, diversion or a destroyer of your other enemies. Enemies are best left to fight eachother, while you gleefully watch on the sidelines. In fact, if you can discreetly find ways to pit your enemies against eachother, they will be less prone to focus on you, and more prone to target eachother. Prosecutors love to prosecute; haters love to hate -- why not simply "direct" them productively, and in a way that proves most advantageous to your interests?

Remember: TRYING TO WIN YOUR ENEMIES OVER IS FOLLY. Invest yourself in finding your friends, instead. And when you find your friends, keep them.


Douglas Castle

p.s. Personal apologies to the late Dale Carnegie. He wasn't wrong -- he just tended to generalize a bit too much.

p.p.s. The photo, for those of you who may be curious, is of the famed San Quentin Death Chamber, a veritable monument to the ultimate in lasting conflict resolution.

Monday, March 05, 2007


Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

Dear Friends:

Life, as we live it, may be viewed as an experiment, and the world around us as a laboratory. In one of the most impressive meetings of my unusual career, a dear friend of mine (a former Delta Forces chap), and a very refined, educated and courtly person, was making a conference room presentation to a group of four or five businessmen, each of whom probably regarded himself as the intellectual and tactical superior of all of the others present (the author of this post being specifically excluded).

My friend finished making his proposal, in his very articulate, thoughtful, low-keyed way. When he had finished, one of the businessmen made the serious mistake of misjudging context and territory. He was not aware of my friend's background, and was assuming an opportunity to press his supposed advantage in negotiating a deal with terms that were, at best, belittling of my friend...and this poorly misguided fellow put forth his counteroffer in a very insulting way.

My friend listened quietly, until the "negotiator" had finished his salvo. What followed was systematic, and effective:
  • My friend nodded his head in polite acknowledgement;
  • My friend put his face forward, staring directly into the eyes of the negotiator;
  • Ten to fifteen seconds (a long time) passed, in silence;
  • My friend placed the flat of his left palm on the conference room table, and simultaneously pointed the first finger of his right hand (with his thumb pointed up, as if he were preparing to aim and fire a loaded pistol) at the torso of the negotiator, and said, sotto voce, " Do not ever mistake my kindness for weakness. " The emphasis was on the word "ever";
  • Every person in the room was stunned for a brief moment;
  • The negotiator apologized for his presumptuousness;
  • My friend merely nodded his head in assent.
  • The meeting continued smoothly, with each party on his very best behavior.

Try an experiment. Make your point (with full eye contact, and pointed finger), and be silent. Maintain eye contact (sort of like those staring contests we had when we were children), and wait for your target to respond. You are likely to see a display of humility which you will find gratifying. People are terrified of quiet intensity, and horrified by eye-riveted silence.

Have fun. Make your observations. Don't abuse the power you gain by this approach.


Douglas Castle

Thursday, January 11, 2007


Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .

In entering into any endeavor, discussion, negotiation, or conflict resolution involving other parties, significant information is generally required, not the least of which will, of necessity include:

  • knowing who the other parties are, in terms of weaknesses and strengths;

  • knowing what the other parties' objectives are;

  • knowing the other parties' true parameters for settlement acceptance (e.g., settlement points, deal killers, non-starters, and "non-negotiable" items);

  • knowing the time and resource constraints of all parties;

  • knowing the other parties' alternatives and recourse positions;

  • knowing which of the parties is the leader, and ultimate, authoritative decisionmaker;

  • knowing which party is the most likely "deal killer" or prospective adversary, as well as why this may be the case (oftimes the factors are more emotional than rational or economic);

  • knowing how much the other parties know about you, and your ultimate position;

  • knowing the facts about the matter or matters to be discussed;

Most important of all, however is to cite, at least within the sanctuary of your own mind, your ideal target objective, and to visualize it in no uncertain terms. You must also be able to clearly and assertively articulate precisely what your target is, even though in certain types of negotiations, your opponents should not be fact, the matter may be deliberately kept a mystery to them for strategic advantage. This type of thinking (whether reaffirmed by mantra, hypnosis, NLP) will enable all of your senses to operate toward the attainment of your objective.

Remember: You can never state your case regarding any matter of importance if you do not know what your own stand is. Before going into that meeting, making that decision, starting to speak, know your target!


Douglas Castle


Bookmark and Share