It’s called Equine Assisted Coaching or Coaching with Horses.
In Ibiza, there’s one amazing woman, Gouwe de Waard, who is doing coaching together with Tanit – a horse. I guess the outcome of the coaching is unique for each and every one. For me it was a special exercize in letting go.
I got into the area together with Tanit. I’m comfortable with all kinds of animals, horses included. And so I started out establishing a connection with her. As I tried to communicate in a few dozen ways, Tanit was hell bent on eating. She ate, and ate, and ate and really seemed to not give a shit about me. In trying to communicate, the problem came down to the fact that I was trying. Whenever I tried to get her to move her head or look at me or call her toward me, I was pulling or pushing – but very gently. But that was enough for Tanit to lose interest in connecting with me.
It was when I finally let go – fully didn’t care – fully went fuck it – then she came over to me and stood beside me looking the same way I did. It culminated in several serene moments when we both stood there looking at each other or looking the same way. An amazing experience that confirmed to me the power of fully letting go.
Thank you Tanit. And thank you Gouwe.
“If you have a purpose of helping others, then why are you helping people that only help themselves?”
That’s a good question. One that I’ve been asking myself lately. There are some definite pros to helping athletes and others who compete. The results are easily measured and so clearly visible. A placement, a rank, a medal. And my contribution can be discerned. But to help someone win competitions implies helping them to focus – on that specific result, to the exclusion of almost everything else. This is the essence of Two Lengths of the Pool when applied to people who compete. To help people focus on competitive results is to help people become more egotistical. Because so many other parts of life and empathy need to go ta make place for that top position. For glory. For The Win.
I help all kinds of people – from athletes to housewives. And that is why I have come to ask myself this question. Because I can compare so many people I’ve helped. And while helping an athlete win gold is really fun, helping someone with a purpose to help others is far more rewarding in the long run – for the person I help. If the person wants to win a competition, I have to help him become more focused, more egotistical. If the person wants to help others, I have to help him to open up and become more empathetic.
This is the moral dilemma inherent in the question. But it’s not quite a rhetorical question, as maybe a balance is needed?
Here’s life from Geir’s point of view:
Not even close to complete or even correct, but it’s a start.
Happiness is not a state.
Happiness is growth.
The derivative of happiness is not zero.
The derivative of happiness is positive energy.
Business people, salesmen, game theory mathematicians, Donald Trump and negotiators would advice you to get the best deal possible. And the best deal would often amount to getting the biggest share of the pie that you can possibly get.
While that strategy may get you rich when selling refrigerators to Eskimos, it is not the best long term strategy for a partnership.
Whenever you try to get a bigger piece of the pie, the other parties gets less. And their motivation for baking pie suffers proportionally.
Trying to get the “best deal” by getting an unfair portion may be a viable short term strategy. But in the long run it kills partnerships.
The best way to ensure affluent pie making and long term profit is for every party to insist on a fair deal for everyone involved.
The best strategy is not to simply cater for one’s own interests. It is to cater for everyone’s interest. Putting my interest first hurts the other parties’ interests and kills off that much motivation to make the partnership work in the long run.
The best strategy would be to impress as much as you can by delivering value to the partnership as often as you can. Give life to the partnership by continually giving and insisting on a fair deal for everyone involved. Empathy, transparency, putting all cards on the table and dropping all chess gaming are keys to a good partnership. Don’t do tactics. Don’t do strategies. Just ensure everyone succeeds.
I do talks and speeches to large audiences. I jump up and down, gesticulate and enthusiastically deliver messages on stage. I coach lots of people – from athletes, artists, executives and people off the street. People see me as a highly extrovert personality who loves being in the spotlight and love talking to lots of people.
When Anette got me to answer 20 questions designed to determine if a person is an extrovert or an introvert, I ended up scoring 85% introvert. And it fits perfectly. I am an introvert.
I love being in my own company, doing my own things without interference or external chatter, noise or direction. I love it to bits. Writing books or articles, programming, creating music or digital art, poetry, drawings, stargazing with my telescope or tinkering with my calculator collection. This gives me energy.
While I also love doing stuff on stage and coach people, it takes energy. But I do love that I get exhausted. Thing is – the things that gives energy is my introverted activities. The stuff that cost me energy is my extroverted activities. I still love doing them, but I need my introverted activities to keep me from burning out. It’s just how it is, really. And I like the mix.
I do not fit in the classical introvert category of thinking a lot, planning carefully, keeping a personal distance to others, etc. I’m an impulsive, anarchistic introvert who don’t mind people getting deep under my skin. Bah, the further I try to pin it down, the harder it becomes – almost like Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Maybe trying pin people down by labelling is both an unhealthy and futile activity. I believe people should remain fluid – much like Bruce Lee once said, “Be water, my friend”.
As long as I can reflect on my reflections, I’ll be OK.