First off, rapport isn't just from neuro-linguistic programming. (Funny you mention it, I was just reading an NLP book couple days ago.) And also to the HN crowd, you should specify NLP; most will think Natural Language Processing and be confused.
I agree with you on all of your points. With a feeling, you should figure out what caused it, and then figure out what caused that, and then recurse backwards until you actually get to the issue. Jerry Talley who taught intimacy at Stanford some time ago has a great lecture on this.
Where we disagree (but not actually, because it's so trivial), is labelling. If you define people-pleasers as those who cannot create rapport because they are self-absorbed, I couldn't agree with you more.
But part of me rejects that definition because then those people-pleasers aren't actually pleasing people.
Unless we are strictly going off the negative connotation of the word (which makes sense), the labelling behind this concept can only become confusing.
Great points, nevertheless. Couldn't have said it better myself.
I wasn't talking to the HN crowd. I was talking to you. I'm well aware that rapport is not just from NLP. But thanks for clarifying for everyone else.
Your point on people-pleasing: that if they are too self-absorbed to form rapport, then they are not really people pleasing. In my experience talking and interacting with people, that is exactly it: folks will see themselves as pleasing others, but in reality, they are not actually doing so, because they are not doing so in integrity. That is the read I on "people pleasers", and that is the read I get from that article. For me, if someone is pleasing others and they are doing so in integrity, I don't see the issue with that. In general, that that rarely happens.
As for the recursion, that is the basic path but it isn't as simple as that. For one thing, fhe intellect alone is inadequate for the task. This was why I was talking about awareness, not intellect. When there are deeper rooted issues, the emotional attachment might even hijack the intellect to come up with rational explanations on why the deeper issues should not be explored.
My exploration of this comes from the meditation / shamanic / psychonaut approaches, and not clinical psychology. Where you can go if you dig impeccably and with an open mind will go to some really strange places. I'd love to see or talk with someone to see if the implications from those strange places changes or inflects effective altruism and infinite ethics.
I agree with you on all of your points. With a feeling, you should figure out what caused it, and then figure out what caused that, and then recurse backwards until you actually get to the issue. Jerry Talley who taught intimacy at Stanford some time ago has a great lecture on this.
Where we disagree (but not actually, because it's so trivial), is labelling. If you define people-pleasers as those who cannot create rapport because they are self-absorbed, I couldn't agree with you more.
But part of me rejects that definition because then those people-pleasers aren't actually pleasing people.
Unless we are strictly going off the negative connotation of the word (which makes sense), the labelling behind this concept can only become confusing.
Great points, nevertheless. Couldn't have said it better myself.