post returned
Sandra Dodd
This post, with all its attachments and siglines, says "thank
you."
Please don't post "thanks" or "me too" unless you're going to add
substantial information and delete the appended posts.
Thanks,
Sandra
From: Brenda Ferns <s_bferns@...>
Date: June 22, 2009 2:54:15 PM MDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Re: A need to "coach" more concentration?
Wow thanks Laureen. I did not know that.
Learning is not happening some of the time learning is happening all
of the time. Life is all about learning.
Mom of 3 amazing girls.
http://adventerousfernsfamily.blogspot.com/
________________________________
From: Laureen <splashing@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 8:16:20 AM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Re: A need to "coach" more concentration?
Heya
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Sandra Dodd<Sandra@sandradodd. com>
wrote:
instructor is a somatic psychotherapist. He was talking about eye
contact, and how incredibly potent it is from a biochemical
perspective.
Apparently, gazing into the eyes of another at the distance of a
nursing baby from its mother (about 18", roughly) has the potential to
release large amounts of oxytocin into the bloodstream,
creating/facilitati ng bonding between two people on an emotional
level. Thus, he explained, it's *extremely* important that if you're
going to engage in eye contact at that general range, you need to make
sure your intent is loving and connecting and no other thing, because
it "screws with the hormonal soup" otherwise, and that's part of why
eye contact with the intent to manipulate or intimidate is so
incredibly upsetting. On a biochemical level, it's wrong.
He suggested that for conversations involving two people but not that
level of deep contact, it's often far better to be facing the same
way, shoulder to shoulder (which is why talking on walks or during
drives is often really good), because there isn't the same level of
hormonal involvement that way.
FWIW, YMMV,
--
~~L!
s/v Excellent Adventure
http://www.theexcel lentadventure. com/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
you."
Please don't post "thanks" or "me too" unless you're going to add
substantial information and delete the appended posts.
Thanks,
Sandra
From: Brenda Ferns <s_bferns@...>
Date: June 22, 2009 2:54:15 PM MDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Re: A need to "coach" more concentration?
Wow thanks Laureen. I did not know that.
Learning is not happening some of the time learning is happening all
of the time. Life is all about learning.
Mom of 3 amazing girls.
http://adventerousfernsfamily.blogspot.com/
________________________________
From: Laureen <splashing@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 8:16:20 AM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Re: A need to "coach" more concentration?
Heya
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Sandra Dodd<Sandra@sandradodd. com>
wrote:
> -=-Eye contact is overrated. Some people listen better when they don'tI was in an anatomy for bodyworkers class this weekend, and the
> look into someone's eyes. There are different ways of doing most
> anything and trying to push eye contact may be unhelpful for some.-=-
>
> Right. She's very right. Too much eye contact is hostile primate
> behavior. Don't go against instincts when you don't have to!
instructor is a somatic psychotherapist. He was talking about eye
contact, and how incredibly potent it is from a biochemical
perspective.
Apparently, gazing into the eyes of another at the distance of a
nursing baby from its mother (about 18", roughly) has the potential to
release large amounts of oxytocin into the bloodstream,
creating/facilitati ng bonding between two people on an emotional
level. Thus, he explained, it's *extremely* important that if you're
going to engage in eye contact at that general range, you need to make
sure your intent is loving and connecting and no other thing, because
it "screws with the hormonal soup" otherwise, and that's part of why
eye contact with the intent to manipulate or intimidate is so
incredibly upsetting. On a biochemical level, it's wrong.
He suggested that for conversations involving two people but not that
level of deep contact, it's often far better to be facing the same
way, shoulder to shoulder (which is why talking on walks or during
drives is often really good), because there isn't the same level of
hormonal involvement that way.
FWIW, YMMV,
--
~~L!
s/v Excellent Adventure
http://www.theexcel lentadventure. com/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
Don't post "thanks" or "me too" or "LOL" unless it's in the course of
a substantial post. Thanks.
From: "Clare Kirkpatrick" <clare.kirkpatrick@...>
Date: March 16, 2010 1:28:28 PM MDT
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [AlwaysLearning] Balancing needs/wants
Hi all
Just wanted to say thanks for the responses to my query the other
day. Some
very helpful suggestions.
Clare
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
a substantial post. Thanks.
From: "Clare Kirkpatrick" <clare.kirkpatrick@...>
Date: March 16, 2010 1:28:28 PM MDT
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [AlwaysLearning] Balancing needs/wants
Hi all
Just wanted to say thanks for the responses to my query the other
day. Some
very helpful suggestions.
Clare
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
I accidentally sent a "post returned" note to the list and it
embarrassed the sender.
We just recently discussed why it's not good to send a post that says
no more than "thanks" or "me too," and it was added to the new posting
guidelines, also discussed here, but the purpose is not to gum up the
list. I accidently gummed up the list myself, and I apologize to
Clare. I'm sorry.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
embarrassed the sender.
We just recently discussed why it's not good to send a post that says
no more than "thanks" or "me too," and it was added to the new posting
guidelines, also discussed here, but the purpose is not to gum up the
list. I accidently gummed up the list myself, and I apologize to
Clare. I'm sorry.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]