Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
Themistocles (thuh·mist-uh·kleez) said: “I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion.” Jenny Mollen said, “I think the power of persuasion would be the greatest superpower of all time.” Aesop said, “Persuasion is often more effectual than force.” And James Altucher (All-tuh-chur) said, “Most people don’t have the power of persuasion.” Does this explain why so many turn to compulsion instead? What is Creator’s perspective on persuasion versus coercion, and persuasion as a superpower?
ClosedNicola asked 3 weeks ago • 
50 views0 answers0 votes
How much of the power of persuasion is a product of divinely bestowed soul attributes, versus a learned skill that one acquires through trial and error over many lifetimes? If a learned skill, how is that skill transferred from lifetime to lifetime? Is it recorded in the akashic records and made part of cellular memory during the fetus’s formation? Or is it something wholly spiritual in nature, retained by the spirit itself, and if one learns the power of persuasion while incarnated, are their newly discovered persuasive powers on display in the light between lives as genuine learning? What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 3 weeks ago • 
54 views0 answers0 votes
Persuasion is the power to effect CHANGE or perhaps prevent change. And even though there is a distinction made between persuasion and compulsion, the threat of compulsion can, in and of itself, be HIGHLY persuasive. The iconic fire and brimstone sermons delivered with great theatrics by eloquent ministers comes to mind. A “fear monger” or one who “peddles fear” also comes to mind. What is Creator’s perspective of persuasion AS compulsion?
ClosedNicola asked 3 weeks ago • 
100 views0 answers0 votes
It’s interesting to note that the iconic “snake oil salesman” never had a storefront, like a pharmacy, but instead pulled into the town square with his wagon and hawked his magical products directly to the crowds, and then often “hightailed it” to the next town before the truth of his products became more widely known. Google defined snake oil salesmen as those who deceived people in order to get money from them. The successful ones were highly persuasive people. When one has such ability, it seems so puzzling that such a person could not find a “legitimate” avenue in which to practice those skills and be successful without all the ignominy. Good salespeople are in demand everywhere and for everything—why resort to fraud? What can Creator tell us about exploiting the masterful use of persuasion to willfully engage in fraud?
ClosedNicola asked 3 weeks ago • 
80 views0 answers0 votes
When one does a study of some of the most effective salespeople, one often encounters a mixed bag of ethically questionable tactics. One extremely successful car salesman would sit down with a phone book, call people and tell them their new car was ready for pickup. When people inevitably said, “I didn’t order a car,” he would profusely apologize and then immediately segue into asking them if they were at all in the market for a new car. With this approach, he made a fortune and set the world record at the time for most non-fleet sales made by a car salesman “one customer at a time.” Now to his credit, he was extremely likable, attentive, thorough, and did great customer service, sent birthday cards to his customers, etc. Nevertheless, a lot of his success was predicated on a lie and deception. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 3 weeks ago • 
43 views0 answers0 votes
In reference to the above car salesman’s success, he was successful because he was good at “cold calling” which most people have a deep aversion to. Cold calling is one of the most obvious breaches of the “Golden Rule” there is. Almost everyone HATES getting cold calls, and yet most successful salespeople will assert that you need to do it in order to be successful. Brian remembers one “boiler room” telephone canvasser who bragged how she abused anyone cold calling her but had no problem doing cold calling for a living. The stark hypocrisy was dramatic and utterly remorseless and unapologetic. She literally thought it was “hilarious” and laughed about it. Brian found it disturbing, to say the least. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 3 weeks ago • 
61 views0 answers0 votes
Cold calling works precisely because so many people have an aversion to doing it. That alone makes it a successful strategy for those who can bring themselves to do it. Brian did sales in the late 80s and struggled with this dilemma. A rule of thumb is it takes 10 calls to get a lead, 10 leads to get an appointment, and 10 appointments to get a sale. Brian demonstrated to himself that, indeed, the formula works and managed to get a house listing as a result. But rather than being encouraged by his success, he was so overcome with guilt about disturbing people eating dinner that he eventually abandoned sales as a career altogether. Cold calling cannot work if everyone does it. Everyone’s phone would ring all day long and it would be utterly chaotic and untenable. There is the idea that, if “everyone” can’t, then maybe no one “should?” What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 3 weeks ago • 
110 views0 answers0 votes
Another successful sales guru made a fortune selling heavy stainless steel cookware door to door. (A direct form of cold calling that predates the telephone). He frequently recounted one sale he made where the woman initially slammed the front door on him and, in response, he went around to the back door to apologize for knocking on the front door. He was so charming and disarming, that the woman felt bad about mistreating him and consented to listening to his presentation as a way to make amends. She ended up buying the very expensive cookware he was selling. We are confronted with the dilemma of his apology being “insincere,” because he certainly felt no remorse about knocking on her front door at all, much less her back door after she made it clear she didn’t want to interact with him. What is Creator’s perspective on this anecdote, and what positive and negative divine lessons can we learn from it?
ClosedNicola asked 3 weeks ago • 
44 views0 answers0 votes
“Breaking the ice” is a phrase in common usage. The online Free Dictionary defines the term this way: “To do something as a means of reducing or eliminating shyness, awkward tension, or unfamiliarity.” So much of persuasion founders on this “iceberg” that the term is quite an ingenious summation of a common problem requiring great skill to master. When someone knows or learns how to “break the ice” effectively, the world is literally their oyster. This is clearly a very important “art of living” skill and lesson that so many people would benefit from mastering but struggle with intensely. What divine insight can Creator share about this common dilemma and challenge?
ClosedNicola asked 3 weeks ago • 
48 views0 answers0 votes
Like so many things dragging us down in this world, an inability to master the art of persuasion has to be up there pretty high on the list. How much of this is a deep healing need requiring divine intervention to resolve? How can Empowered Prayer, the Lightworker Healing Protocol, Deep Subconscious Mind Reset, and Divine Life Support help to heal the barriers to becoming a persuasive individual? How can divine partnership ensure that the power of persuasion is used to uplift rather than abuse?
ClosedNicola asked 3 weeks ago • 
41 views0 answers0 votes
“Shame on you!” We’ve all heard it, and we’ve all said it. The Oxford Dictionary defines shame as both a feeling and an action, “a painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior,” as well as, to “make (someone) feel ashamed.” Shame is a feeling nearly everyone everywhere tries to avoid, with the irony being that those most vulnerable to criticism are the ones most prone to overindulge in attempting to elicit that feeling in others. In some ways the dichotomy of shame is perhaps the most profound of hypocrisy litmus tests there is. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
145 views0 answers0 votes
Pavlov’s dog. If that term is unfamiliar to you, it is worth your time to get familiar with what it really means. Ivan Pavlov demonstrated a “conditioned response” in the dogs he used for experimentation. Some of these experiments were quite cruel and involved electric shocks to impair or elicit both involuntary physiological as well as behavioral responses. The act of shaming is actually a very similar paradigm, and it’s easy to imagine the one doing the shaming as having an electric shock button that they press to deliver a very uncomfortable at best, and excruciatingly painful at worst, emotional shock to the recipient’s consciousness. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
114 views0 answers0 votes
Shaming is not isolated to humans. An acquaintance has a five-year-old beagle who has an undesirable habit of urinating on the hardwood floor if not put outside on a timely basis. The dog has been trained entirely through rewards and only verbal shaming as punishment. But the effect of shaming can be quite profound. The dog knows that urinating inside the house is undesirable behavior and displeasing to the humans in the house, so the dog makes sure no one is watching when she goes. As an adult dog, she has never been caught in the act. One recent morning this acquaintance found the all too familiar puddle on the floor and turned to the dog right behind them, pointed to the puddle, and said, “No,” just, “No.” Not loud or even conveying much in the way of emotion, just enough to communicate displeasure. The response of the dog was rather extreme—tail between her legs and she wandered off to hide under the raised footrest of a recliner for a few minutes “until the coast was clear.” The acquaintance was a bit “taken aback” at the profound effect of a simple, “No.” This person does not shame the dog very often, and that may be one explanation for the exaggerated effect. What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
163 views0 answers0 votes
The feeling of shame is associated with the “conscience” of a person. In fact, the very existence of this phenomenon is one of the most persuasive arguments there is for the existence of the divine. It’s hard to take the “conscience” for granted. Unfortunately, we have learned that the feeling of shame is a rather crude form of messaging that can be delivered from multiple sources, some benevolent and some malevolent. Presumably, it can come from the higher self, guides and guardians, and even Creator. It can also be triggered by the deep subconscious, cellular memory, spirit attachments, and perhaps most alarmingly of all, the interlopers—fallen angelics and extraterrestrials. Figuring out both the origin and relevancy of feelings of shame is one of the most profound challenges every human being faces. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
175 views0 answers0 votes
Shaming seems to be the very root of much political discourse, with one side attempting to shame the other side. The negative effect of all this is that people eventually get cynical about all political discourse and will shy away from it altogether. It’s even more discouraging when the ones doing the most shaming are also the most hypocritical, and the most guilty of the behavior they are shaming the other side for. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
148 views0 answers0 votes
123…18Next »
Ask Question