First a quick update:

****  “The art of flirting” – Read the transcript of the interview I gave to Sue McGarvie Clinical Therapist and Syndicated Talk Show host of Ottawa’s EZ Rock 99.7 “Love & Lipstick”, about flirting from the male perspective – which flirting techniques work with men and which don’t: http://patrickwanis.com/blog/index.php/2010/09/01/the-art-of-flirting/

****  The training – now also via webinar – In response to requests from people outside the US, the training course for my unique therapeutic technique “Subconscious Rapid Transformation Technique” (SRTT) will now be conducted over the phone and via webinar so you can learn and follow along and ask questions via your computer from anywhere in the world, and, we have adjusted the dates to ensure everyone is accommodated. Are you one of the lucky few to grab the last places to make up the 15 people being accepted? Hurry: http://patrickwanis.com/srtt/srtt.asp

Now, let’s talk about why we are not all the same and its implications.

This year, the T.I.M.M.-E Company, Inc. (Tolerance in Multi Media Education) – an educational company that teaches tolerance and diversity in schools, celebrated its 10th anniversary of the children’s book “We Are All The Same Inside.” The book’s message is to encourage children to celebrate our similarities while embracing each other’s differences.

And yes, it is true that were we to remove color, gender, culture, age and other differences such as socio-economic disparities, we would find that inside we are all very similar and accordingly we do also have common physical and emotional needs such as food, water, shelter, attention, approval, love & connection, security, challenges, significance, growth, and contribution – meaning and purpose. (See also my Newsletter from June 30, 2010: “Getting your six needs”: http://patrickwanis.com/blog/index.php/2010/06/30/getting-your-six-needs/ )

Common humanity is one of the key messages of the 1985 classic film “The Breakfast Club”: beneath their obvious external differences, the geek, the sports jock, the princess, the criminal and the kook are in essence all the same, sharing the same fears, hopes, deepest emotions and problems.

However, there are also critical ways in which we are very different and that, in turn, can destroy relationships and our general happiness & enjoyment of life.

There were two brothers, just three years apart in age. Both boys suffered abuse from an angry alcoholic father and felt unloved by a mother who was self-absorbed and not very nurturing. When the two boys grew up, one became angry like his father and continued to be verbally abusive towards his mother. The second brother left home at a very young age, traveled the world and studied psychology in an attempt to understand and heal himself.

In another incident, three young boys were sitting at the edge of the road, playing, when a car drove by and ran over a cat. One boy laughed wickedly, another remained stunned, and the third boy ran away and subsequently grew up afraid of cats (interestingly, not cars, roads or driving.)

The point here is that we perceive events differently, we respond and react to them differently and we can all be affected differently by the same event. In other words, we are not all the same and yet, generally we expect other people to act, respond and behave the same way that we would do.

The differences in the way we process, react and respond to events can be caused by many factors such as our subconscious programming and our personality and temperament. For example, in my audio book, “Personality Test: Who are You? Talker, Doer, Thinker, Watcher?”, I reveal that in a crisis the Doer (the Driver) would automatically take charge; the Talker (The Expressive) would be the first person to make light of the situation, and; the Watcher (The Amiable) would be busy consoling and expressing compassion to everyone involved. http://patrickwanis.com/WhoAreYouPersonalityTest.asp

It is not clear at exactly which point in maturation that we develop personality or if we are simply born with a clearly defined personality. Some parents will relate that their child has a distinct personality from very early infancy. Of course, even a distinct personality and temperament can become further molded by environment, events and upbringing. A person that would naturally be highly expressive might grow up to be shy and introverted because of negative experiences, childhood abuse, constant criticism, condemnation or other instilled fears.

The moral here is that we need to become aware of and recognize the differences that exist within each of us. And herein lays the problem that can lead to misery – our expectations of other people – and this affects our social, business and romantic relationships and, the way we communicate with each other. When we fail to recognize that each one of us is different, we are ultimately saying “why can’t you be more like me?”  

Thus relationships can become the victim of the “Be Like Me” syndrome: We mistakenly assume that everyone is just like us and we manage our relationships and communicate from that perspective and, when others are not like us, we assume they are deliberately being argumentative, difficult or simply defiant. In the extreme, we conclude that the person who behaves differently to us must be inferior to us or we become frustrated and angry feeling like a failure because the other person isn’t acting the way we would or doing what we want them to do. It is easy for us to be completely befuddled when a person responds in a seemingly overly sensitive manner to something that might not affect us at all.

If you are the extrovert type (energized by being around people) you might scoff and find quite boring and stuffy the person that is introverted and prefers to stay at home than go out or entertain (introverts are energized by being alone and drained when faced with large groups of people); if you are a person that tends to be methodical, literal and likes practical data to work with, then you would think of people who tend to be guided by their intuition as flakey and they, in turn, would see you as boring, cold or unimaginative.

If you make most of your decisions based on logic and reason then you would easily become frustrated with the person that makes most of his/her decisions based on emotion, what he or she believes to be right. Surprisingly, the feeling-type decision maker usually mistrusts the logical thinker-type decision maker.

Though rarely mentioned, personality differences can also account for a large percentage of marriage and relationship breakups because the two people see and approach the world through highly conflicting preferences, filters and value systems. Thus, if you want to communicate effectively and move easily through conflict, rather than expecting the other person to “be like me”, adopt the approach of “I need to be more like you.” Put another way, whenever you want to persuade or influence someone, stop trying to make them see the world through your eyes (though that is appropriate in certain situations) and instead, see the world through their eyes.

Remember that although, we all have the same fundamental needs, we are not all the same and we all view, respond and process life differently; people cannot be what you want them to be nor respond exactly as you would; your best friend might be the most similar to you and your family might be the most dissimilar to you. We often choose our friends based on similarities and common ground.

If you want to learn more about each of the personality type, their emotions, behavior at work, as parents and friends, and their best matches in relationships and romance, listen to my audio book: “Personality Test: Who are You? Talker, Doer, Thinker, Watcher?” http://patrickwanis.com/WhoAreYouPersonalityTest.asp

Meanwhile, here are a few more insights into personality types:

• The Talker is the Artisan, extroverted, seeking sensation, does what works, speaks of what is, and excelling as promoters, crafters, performers and composers

• The Doer is the Guardian, extroverted, seeking security, does what is right, speaks of what is, and excelling as supervisors, inspectors, providers and protectors

• The Thinker is the Rational, introverted, seeking knowledge, does what is right, speaks of possibilities, and excelling as field marshals, masterminds, inventors and architects

• The Watcher is the Idealist, introverted, seeking identity, does what works, speaks of possibilities, and excelling as teachers, counselors, champions of causes and healers

You can comment on this newsletter by going to www.patrickwanis.com/blog   if you have received this newsletter as a forward and would like to receive all of my newsletters please enter your email address on the home page at PatrickWanis.com.

I wish you the best and remind you “Believe in yourself -You deserve the best!”

Patrick Wanis Ph.D.

Celebrity Life Coach, Human Behavior & Relationship Expert & Clinical Hypnotherapist
www.patrickwanis.com

Sue McGarvie:          Hey, this is Sue on Love and Lipstick, and we are joined right now by Dr. Patrick Wanis Ph.D. who is joining us from California. He is a human behavior and relationship expert and he’s talking to us about flirting tonight. Patrick, how are you?

Patrick Wanis Ph.D.:           I’m doing great. Thank you, Sue.

Sue McGarvie:          All right. You have this interesting insight as to – from a male perspective what women need to do in order to catch your eye?

Patrick Wanis Ph.D.:           Yeah, often what we hear about flirting is always from the girls’ perspective, “Oh, this is what you should do.” But coming from a male perspective, then, I’m standing on the other side and saying, “Here’s what I really want. Here’s what I really need. Here’s what I would like.”

Sue McGarvie:          Okay. Well, I’ve just watched The Ugly Truth. They’re saying that all men are sort of Neanderthals. They’re all really looking for sort of what we look like in that hourglass figure and it really isn’t about engaging. But if you’re looking at how to meet somebody initially, how do you want to be approached?

Patrick Wanis Ph.D.:           Yes. You said something really interesting, Sue. You talked about the Neanderthal, and I think there are two layers to every man. There’s the Neanderthal and then there’s hopefully the evolved brain, but there is actually three parts to our brain. So yes, the thing that gets our attention is the physicality or something that’s really in our face. So men are not about being subtle. They really want you or I should say we really want you to get our attention.

                                    Now, you can get our attention by the physicality in terms of what you’re wearing or how you look and what body shape you have, but you can also get our attention by really doing something that’s going to – I don’t want to use the word “startle” but something that’s a little out of the usual, that’s going to be a little bit different. Now, what I mean by that is it’s very, very old but we talked about winking.

                                    Now, I’m not saying that a girl should wink at a guy but making eye contact is what really gets a guy going. Now, if a girl makes eye contact with a guy and then sort of looks down, gets him intrigued and that’s much stronger and more impactful than say trying to get someone to go up to the guy and say, “Oh, my friend is interested in you.” That doesn’t work. It’s better if a girl is actually making a direct contact with the guy.

Sue McGarvie:          Okay. So this works in not just in bars but in bookstores, in coffee shops, I would say, in the wine tasting classes that we take around here. They are really big. Do you suggest those for all of that?

Patrick Wanis Ph.D.:           All of the places are applicable with the exception, of course, of the church which you can do after the church, but not while you’re in service, while in church, synagogue, et cetera. But my point is what you want to do is let the man know that there’s some interest on your part in him, then you sort of turn away so that he comes chasing after you.

                                    Now, when I say turn away, that’s a symbolic phrase. It means you don’t initially have to physically turn away. You are simply doing something that says, “Okay, I’ve let you know I’m interested. Now, I want you to come after me” because the man does want to do that. I don’t want to appear to be completely stereotypical or gender prejudice, but it is true that guys do like to hunt. If the guy is only interested in getting something out of you physically and sexually, then yeah he doesn’t care who’s hunting. But for a relationship, it’s a completely different story.

                                    So for the relationship, if you want something more like a couple of dates or a relationship, then you do want the man to come hunting after you. You do want him to chase and he likes that because here’s another thing about flirting: men like a challenge. So it’s similar to that old phrase from the old movies of “throwing down the gauntlet.”

                                    So you’ve started the interaction. You’ve flirted, you’ve winked, or you’ve done something that says – and again, I don’t want to say that specifically wink but you’ve done something that says, “I’m interested in you” or “Wow! I like you” or “Hey, wouldn’t you like to be with me?” They’re the messages you’re sending and once you’ve done that, then you have to sort of go a little bit the opposite of what you’ve just done and let him come after you.

Sue McGarvie:          Right. What about the slutty clothes? What about the really provocative clothes? Do you think that that’s something that will cause the attention or do you think it backfires?

Patrick Wanis Ph.D.:           Well, it definitely gets you the attention. It all depends on what kind of attention do you want. When we talk about flirting we have to remember too what is flirting. Flirting is different to simply trying to pick someone up. Flirting can be completely harmless and it doesn’t have to necessarily lead to anything else. The concept of flirting is very light, soft, gentle, harmless innuendoes. It’s familiarity, like we know each other, we’ve connected, and it’s also very humorous. I don’t mean, like a comedian but it has a sense of comedy to it, a sense of lightness, a sense of humor.

                                    So if I made a joke and I say, “Oh, sure, I’ve known you for so long. Do you remember that time when we were in the Caribbean and you got so mad at me and pushed me off the boat and then I almost drowned?” and then I smile. Now, right there I’m creating some sort of story and you’re like, “Well, I just met this guy.” But I’m creating the flirting as if we’ve known each other forever; if I’m making some sort of joke like, “Do you remember the first time we met like five years ago?” And you’re thinking, “When did I meet you?” And then I create some sort of story.

                                    Well, then I’m flirting with you. I may not be saying anything sexual, but I might be just saying flirting like, “Remember that time when I first proposed and you turned me down and then I proposed another three times and here I am still waiting?” And you’re hopefully laughing because you’ve just met me.

Sue McGarvie:          Agreed.

Patrick Wanis Ph.D.:           So flirting isn’t always about leading directly to sex. If you want to go flirting to hyperdrive, then yeah, wear a really short skirt; wear something provocative; wear something revealing; wear something that really accentuates your shape. But remember that message to the guy is more about instant sex than it is about the chase. Part of the fun of flirting is the chase.

Sue McGarvie:          Okay. So Patrick, if people are interested in finding out more about what you think about, tell me your website.

Patrick Wanis Ph.D.:           PatrickWanis.com.

Sue McGarvie:          Okay. Spell it for me. W-A-N-I-S, right?

Patrick Wanis Ph.D.:           Correct.

Sue McGarvie:          All right. Dr. Patrick Wanis Ph.D. is a human behavior expert, and thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us about a male perspective on flirting. We always like that.

Patrick Wanis Ph.D.:           You’re welcome. My pleasure, Sue.

Sue McGarvie:          All right. Take care, Patrick.

First a quick update:

****  Attention life coaches, therapists & hypnotists only – For the first time ever, I am offering a training course and certification to learn my unique therapeutic technique “Subconscious Rapid Transformation Technique” (SRTT) – the most effective way of any to get greater, better, faster results for your clients, while making more per session, and in half the time. And it is the only technique where you can book sessions with clients no matter where they are, AND no matter where YOU are…working over the phone! At the time of writing this, eight people have signed up and that means there are only seven spots left – I am only accepting fifteen people into the course. So hurry now: http://patrickwanis.com/srtt/

****  “Get the man you want” – Listen to the interview I will be giving to Lucia – The Art of Love Radio Show about my book “Get the man you want” -  live at www.latalkradio.com this Sunday August 29th at 3pm PT/6pm EST

Now, let’s talk about the roots of anger.

Recently, I was explaining to a reporter that the incident involving the Jetblue flight attendant (who responded to an angry passenger by expressing anger himself when he quit his job and opened the emergency parachute to escape) is a sign of rampant stress in our society. And yes, stress can lead to outbursts of anger and even rage. But anger has many more causes than stress.

The dictionary defines anger as an emotion – a feeling of strong displeasure and belligerence. But anger is much more than that. Anger is the almost immediate response to being hurt, injured or wronged; the hurt or injury can be a physical, emotional or psychological pain. Beneath that anger is a deeper pain. In other words, while the unsafe expression of anger can cause problems, anger in itself is not the problem, but rather, it is the symptom of another problem, emotion or belief.

For example, Jonathan came to me concerned because he was having sudden feelings of a desire to hurt someone. Jonathan told me that he would be walking along the street when he would be overcome with anger and wanted to lash out and hit someone – anyone and everyone. Jonathan couldn’t identify a specific reason or trigger to his anger; he could be having a great day and then be out on the street for lunch when he would experience a sudden urge to hurt someone.

Jonathan’s case reminded me of a couple of people I worked with on the Montel Williams TV show a few years ago. The episode in question dealt exclusively with explosive anger. One man, James, age 31 was married with a young baby. He called himself a ticking time bomb; he would have sudden outbursts of anger, smashing and breaking things and thus endangering his child. While on set, a guest psychiatrist asked James if he had undergone tests to examine his brain because this psychiatrist believed there was something neurologically wrong with James. I immediately intervened and said to Montel that I did not believe there was anything wrong with James’ brain but rather that his anger was triggered from the horrible experiences James had suffered as a child – he was molested and abused by a family member, and then later abused and molested by the parents who adopted him; the very people that were supposed to love and protect him, not only betrayed his trust, they physically and emotionally abused him. Thus, James’ anger was geared at the world which he felt was unsafe, had betrayed him and hurt him.

As I explored more of Jonathan’s story, he revealed that he had been molested around age 4 by a next door neighbor. We explored his subconscious beliefs and perception of that incident and when asked “At whom are you angry?” I was able to uncover the anger that Jonathan felt at age 4 as he subconsciously blurted out the words “I am angry at everybody!”   

And who was ‘everybody’ at that time?

• A close friend of the family, the next door neighbor who molested him
• His father and mother for not protecting him from the neighbor

To a child, his/her parents often represent the world (‘everybody’), and in Jonathan’s case, all the people that he trusted and expected to protect him and keep him safe, had let him down – including his neighbor and friend. Jonathan was also angry because he felt dirty and afraid to trust. Thus, those words “I am angry at everybody’ represented the anger that he had been carrying around with him his entire life and which would be manifested in the form of a sudden random urge to hurt strangers for no consciously apparent reason.

For both James and Jonathan, it seemed their options were limited to being a victim – taking medication to control the anger or attending anger management classes which again only deal with an attempt to manage and handle the anger but which fail to neutralize it or deal with the deeper issues of betrayal, violation and a fear to trust other people. James attended anger management classes from age 14 but they failed.

I teach that it is critical to uncover and treat the root cause of the symptoms and surface problem so that the roots can be removed and then the person can be set free from the anger and its deeper issues & limiting beliefs.

Again, if Jonathan were to attend anger management classes or accept medication, he might learn to control the anger but he would never be free of the pain of violation nor would be set free to trust again.

The real cause of most of our present pain comes from our responses, reactions and conclusions to our past pain and incidents – to the things that happened to us. In other words, mental and emotional freedom are achieved when we can release the negative emotions (sadness, guilt, blame, shame, revenge, confusion, lack of self worth, self-loathing, etc) and transform our perception of the event by realizing at a subconscious and emotional level that the event is over and we were not the cause of it, nor to blame, and gain new insight that allows us to forgive the person that wronged us. Jonathan, like most victims of abuse, suffered from the plaguing need to hear the answer to the question “Why me? Why did he do this to me?” Beneath that is the question and belief “Is there something wrong with me? It must be my fault. It is my fault, I am bad, I deserve to be punished or I don’t deserve love or good things.”

I would also like to emphasize how critical forgiveness is in this process; how critical forgiveness is to your inner peace and emotional freedom. Whom have you not yet forgiven? Remember by forgiving the other person, you are releasing you – even if it doesn’t initially seem that way to you. It is also significant to become aware when you are angry if you are also angry at yourself –for something you did or didn’t do.

I worked with Jonathan to achieve, at a subconscious and emotional level, the four steps I mentioned above:

1. Release the pain and negative emotions
2. Understand the event is over and finished
3. Gain new understanding about why it happened; that it’s not your fault and there is nothing wrong with you, and; create new empowering beliefs
4. Forgive and express compassion

I did this process with Jonathan in one session. And this process is my unique therapeutic technique “The Subconscious Rapid Transformation Technique.” Do you want to learn it and use it to really help your clients at an extraordinarily fast pace and thus be able to charge more for such great results?

Go here to watch the video and get started, but hurry I am only accepting fifteen people, and at least eight people have already joined, maybe more by the time you have read this newsletter. http://patrickwanis.com/srtt/

You can comment on this newsletter by going to www.patrickwanis.com/blog   if you have received this newsletter as a forward and would like to receive all of my newsletters please enter your email address on the home page at PatrickWanis.com.

I wish you the best and remind you “Believe in yourself -You deserve the best!”

Patrick Wanis Ph.D.

Celebrity Life Coach, Human Behavior & Relationship Expert & Clinical Hypnotherapist
www.patrickwanis.com

First a quick update:

**** Only 15 places – For the first time ever, I am offering a training course and certification to learn my coaching/therapeutic techniques, my “Subconscious Rapid Transformation Technique” (SRTT) – the technique I use with my clients from housewives and mothers to business owners, sports athletes and celebrities. If you are a life coach, counselor, therapist, hypnotherapist, NLP practitioner or psychotherapist, then this training course is for you – if you want greater faster results and you want to expand your business. Click here:

 http://patrickwanis.com/srtt/

Now, let’s talk about losing your dream and how to get it back.

Recently, two similar cases with clients revealed that it is easy to lose your dream – your goals, aspirations and desires.

Peter, a business man, last year, left his job of six years and then stayed only a short while at the next job because he realized it was not a fit for him. Some months had passed and now Peter told me that he had lost his self-confidence, felt lost, confused and doubtful of his talents and whether or not he even wanted to do the same job again.

Jenny had been ill for many years and was now back and healthy and strong. But the bills for doctors and hospital coverage had been exorbitant and her husband was forced to work for long hours six and seven days a week with almost no time off for vacation. Jenny told me she was feeling lost, confused and generally down with no motivation or excitement for life.

Peter and Jenny shared common challenges.

We all start out with a dream or many dreams – something we want to do, be or have. It might be a longing to be an artist or a performer, to travel, to have a family and raise children, to live in a particular place or country, to live a certain lifestyle, to start a company or create a product, to succeed in a particular field, and so forth.

Along the way, though, come the obstacles and challenges to our dream: stress, life changes, responsibilities, failures, illness, etc. Sometimes, we also find ourselves switching our priorities – even unconsciously – and we are left doubting ourselves, with a feeling that something is amiss because we are not longing for what was our original dream or passion. (For example, one actress told me she was tired of the auditioning and traveling and now wanted security and a family but felt guilty that maybe she was giving up her passion.)

Peter told me that he went to a career counselor who gave him personality tests to complete and said the tests accurately described him but he said he didn’t fit the types of careers the tests suggested for his personality type.

I reassured Peter that there was nothing wrong with him and his confusion, self-doubt and lack of self-confidence simply stemmed from not being clear about what he wanted and, from not realizing that he was simply stuck in a habit – in a new program.

The same principle applied to Jenny who told me she wanted to spend more time with her husband but couldn’t imagine how that could happen since he needed to work every day to cover bills. Jenny also complained that staying positive didn’t help and affirmations were useless for her – they hadn’t worked.

For both Peter and Jenny the answer was the same – it was the new habit – the mental program that led them to new beliefs that everything was hopeless, and in turn, that feeling of hopelessness was taking over their lives and preventing them from finding a solution.

It is critical to recognize that everything we do every day either reinforces or leads to and develops a new belief and a new dominant emotion. In turn, that emotion either energizes our dreams and aspirations or it kills them. Both Peter and Jenny could not now imagine anything other than what they were presently experiencing. In other words, they couldn’t see and feel their dream anymore.

I told Peter about the Walt Disney company which established a design and development division in the 1950s to create and construct its theme parks worldwide – it’s now known as Imagineering (or WDI.) The intention is to combine the skills of imagination and engineering to create something truly special. There is a joke within that division:

“How many Imagineers does it take to change a light bulb? The answer is: Does it have to be a light bulb?”

Thus, these Imagineers place no limit, flowing with a wide-open mind. What also makes Imagineers different from other theme park designers is the story. For example, haunted houses are common at Halloween but Disney’s “The Haunted Mansion” is unique because it is much more than just a series of scares around each corner; it’s the story of being on a tour of the haunted place, with 999 ghosts, and then room for one more.

The lesson for us from these Imagineers is to combine imagination and engineering to create a story – a story for your life – for what you now want to create.

Peter and Jenny had become stuck in their new belief that nothing would change – that everything was hopeless. Thus all they could see and feel was more of the same; more of what they were already experiencing. They had lost their dream.

This is not unusual as everything counts in large amounts. The daily events and our responses to them along with our daily action and habits combine to form a new habit, a new emotion and a new belief. One day we awaken to find that we cannot imagine anything else because we have become so accustomed to the same pattern of events and all we can envisage is the same bleak picture.

The solution is action: practical steps to change your situation and a plan to ‘imagineer’ the desired goal.

I also pointed out to Peter that we all have more than one passion and it is also okay for our priorities, goals and dreams to evolve. Janet and Chris Attwood who teach the passion test believe we have about 5 top passions. Have you written out yours?

For Peter and Jenny there were practical actionable steps, plus one important key.

Intuitively, I suggested to Peter that he also consider becoming a consultant – and he replied that he had thought about it but had held back acting on it out of fear and doubt. Now though, Peter had an opportunity to take his dream in a new direction; he had a plan and a strategy.

For Jenny, action was also critical, evaluating ways that might create more time for her and her husband – a job for her and reducing overhead as much as possible.

The key to reviving your dreams and aspirations is to first become aware that you have become stuck, feeling hopeless, helpless, frustrated, doubtful and so forth; those emotions prevent you from taking action to make your dream a reality.

To change those dominant emotions, you need to deliberately visualize what you want and emotionalize that visualization. (And it is okay if you decide to evolve from old goals and dreams to new ones.)

This is the key to motivation and inspiration; our subconscious mind works in pictures, symbols and imagery. When we find it hard to get started, it is not simply because we do not feel like it; it is because of the pictures we see in our mind. If you want to get motivated to do something visualize the positive end result – the benefits and feel them. This can be a simple daily exercise of just a few minutes a couple of times a day – preferably in the morning and at night. The more you see and feel what you want to create the faster you transform those old negative feelings and the sooner you take meaningful action to bring to life your dream, to create a new reality and a new story.

You too can become like Disney’s Imagineers – Imagining by visualizing with emotion, and engineering by taking action!

You can comment on this newsletter by going to www.patrickwanis.com/blog   if you have received this newsletter as a forward and would like to receive all of my newsletters please enter your email address on the home page at PatrickWanis.com.

I wish you the best and remind you “Believe in yourself -You deserve the best!”

Patrick Wanis Ph.D.

Celebrity Life Coach, Human Behavior & Relationship Expert & Clinical Hypnotherapist
www.patrickwanis.com

* Life coach

* Therapist

* Counselor

* Psychologist

* Hypnotist/Hypnotherapist

* Mental health worker/counselor/practitioner

* NLP practitioner or

* Marriage or family therapist

(If not, please pass this on to your favorite Life Coach or therapist… he/she will thank you.)

BUT, if you ARE, then this message is for YOU.

Have you ever wondered how great it would be if you could get bigger, better, faster results for your clients, while making more per session, and in half the time?

Does that sound like more money and more free time – time to do as you please?

Additionally, what if you could break away from your geographic boundaries and book sessions with clients no matter where they are, AND no matter where YOU are… over the phone?

You could then help people while at home, on the beach, on the golf course, wherever!

Would that save you even more time, while bringing in even more capital?

You bet it would… and I know because I’ve been perfecting a unique therapeutic technique that has transcended space and time for over 15 years.

This same system has made me one of the most called upon life coaches by MSNBC, CNN.com, FOX NEWS, EXTRA, Montel Williams Show, Mike and Juliet show, Mun2, XM radio, Date.com, Matchmaker.com, E!, Vh1, MTV News, Cosmo, Dating on Demand, Rolling Stone, InTouch Weekly, Natural Awakenings, Us Weekly, OK Magazine, It’s All In The Journey – recovery magazine, and more…

…and allowed me to work with celebrity clients – athletes, actors, actresses, models and sports players and athletes.

How about you? Want in?

Go right now and watch this short video to find out if YOU will be one of only 15 others to discover my secrets and put them to work for you.

http://patrickwanis.com/srtt/

It’s best to see this right now as I know these 15 spots will fill almost instantly… and once that happens, I’ll take the video down and you’ll have missed it.

Here’s the link again:

http://patrickwanis.com/srtt/

I wish you the best and remind you “Believe in yourself -You deserve the best!”

Patrick Wanis Ph.D.

Celebrity Life Coach, Human Behavior & Relationship Expert & Clinical Hypnotherapist

PS. Will you be one of only 15 to discover my secrets to bigger, better, faster results for your clients, while making more per session, and in half the time?

Go here, right now to find out before 15 others beat you to it and I pull the video down:

http://patrickwanis.com/srtt/

First a quick update:

****  JetBlue attendant flips out – a sign of rampant stress in society - Read the interview I gave to a reporter from the Chicago Tribune about Steven Slater, The JetBlue flight attendant who became so fed up with an argument with a passenger, that he flipped out, cursed the passenger over the intercom, grabbed a beer and then deployed the emergency slide at New York’s Kennedy Airport. I reveal the link between Slater’s actions, rampant stress in society, frustration with rude people, a backlash against big corporations and increasingly decaying work conditions and pressure.
http://patrickwanis.com/blog/index.php/2010/08/11/jetblue-attendant-a-symbol-of-rampant-stress/

****  Charlie Sheen: “I’ll kill you” – According to a police report, actor Charlie Sheen threatened his wife, saying “I’ll kill you.” Brooke Mueller says her husband Charlie Sheen sat on her, strangled her, and held a knife to her throat on Christmas day. Listen to the interview I gave to Alan Stock host of Newsradio 840 KXNT when I point out that the case of Charlie Sheen and Mel Gibson have both failed to highlight the serious issue of domestic violence and too many people including groups that represent survivors of domestic abuse have remained silent about Charlie Sheen; favoritism and money are reasons that Charlie Sheen or his TV show “Two and a half men” are not being boycotted. http://patrickwanis.com/RadioInterviews.asp#illkillyou  

Click here to read the transcript of this interview: http://patrickwanis.com/blog/index.php/2010/08/10/charlie-sheen-ill-kill-you/

****  Learn my coaching/therapeutic techniques – it’s almost ready – I will be offering for the first time, a training course on my “Subconscious Rapid Transformation Technique” (SRTT.) Look for an email in the next few days.

Now, let’s talk about regrets and how they can actually be beneficial.

This summer’s blockbuster movie “Inception” features a soundtrack by Hans Zimmer that originates from Edit Piaf’s famous French song from 1960: “Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien” – no, I regret nothing. In fact, the song matches Inception because the theme of regret weaves throughout the film.  In Inception, “Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien” is used to signal the various characters that it is time to wake up and/or “kick up” into a higher dream level. The English translation of “Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien”:

No, nothing at all, I regret nothing at all

Not the good, nor the bad. It is all the same.

No, nothing at all, I have no regrets about anything.

It is paid, wiped away, forgotten.

I am not concerned with the past, with my memories.

I set fire to my pains and pleasures,

I don’t need them anymore.

I have wiped away my loves and my troubles

Swept them all away

I am starting again from zero.

No, nothing at all, I have no regrets

Because from today, my life, my happiness, everything,

Starts with you!

What does it mean to regret or have regrets?

The dictionary defines regret as to feel sorry or sad that something has happened; a feeling of sorrow, remorse or guilt for a fault, act, loss, disappointment, etc.

Wikipedia defines regret as “a negative conscious and emotional reaction to personal past acts and behaviors.” But Wikipedia is mistaken as I will explain shortly.

We all have regrets of some sort; something in our past that we wish we could have done differently; maybe we wish we had not said those hurtful words or maybe we wish we had not treated that person in that way; maybe we even feel sad or sorry for something we didn’t do or didn’t say. Is there someone in your life who has passed on and to whom you wish you had said those words – “I love you” or “I forgive you”?

Like Wikipedia, some counselors and therapists believe that regrets are negative but that is not true. Yes, regrets can lead to guilt but sometimes we need to feel regret and guilt for things we did or didn’t do.

Why?

We learn from our regrets and even from our guilt. We need to feel guilt to jolt us into changing our behavior. We need guilt and regret so that we can avoid repeating the same mistake and so that we can become aware of the way our actions affect the people around us. Without guilt and regret we could not have morality and ethics; we need regret and guilt so that we can learn to truly say sorry and make amends with the people we have wronged. For example, if we didn’t feel any regret or guilt for wronging someone, then we would lack all empathy and compassion. However, I am not saying that we stay stuck in the guilt or that we allow the regrets to paralyze us and prevent us from enjoying life. In fact, initial guilt and regret can move us forward.

I recall entering a relationship with a girl knowing full well in my own mind from the beginning exactly the way it would turn out – with her cheating on me; and it did. I recall in that same relationship having close to ten key moments when it was time to let go of the relationship but refusing out of stubbornness, a desire to rescue and change her, to gain her approval, and my fear of what would happen when the relationship ended. But the pain, the guilt and the regret at the end of the relationship (when she cheated on me), taught me to listen to my intuition, to be more flexible – to accept when it is time to let go of a relationship, to stop trying to rescue girls, and to seek my own approval. But I learned these lessons only because I felt the pain that came from the regrets of not taking certain action.

The lesson here is to use your regrets of the past to help you take action in the present; to make better choices now. Maybe you didn’t speak up as a child in a critical moment and now you remind yourself to speak your truth with compassion.

The key is to use the past regrets to shape your future. I know that deep in my heart, I regret not having made more of an effort to get close to my father before he passed, to establish a relationship with him and to know each other. Of course, it is too late now and wallowing in the guilt, sadness, loss and disappointment serves no positive benefit. However, I used that as a reminder to avoid the same mistake with other members of my family and so I made a conscious effort to get closer and establish relationships with brothers, nieces and nephews, even though they live in another country.

If I stayed stuck in the “what ifs” I would end up destroying myself – mentally, emotionally and physically: “What if I had a good relationship with my dad? What if we knew each other and had bonded?” Choosing to obsess over the “what ifs” only leads to further disappointment in the present, making one think that his or her life is completely messed up and creating hopelessness, anxiety and depression. I cannot change the past and thinking about ‘what ifs’ would only leave me feeling helpless and out of control. The empowering response is to look at what I can control now – my present choices and to make conscious choices to avoid the same mistake – and thus ultimately avoid the same pain.

Thus regrets of the past can help us to avoid regrets of the future by becoming more aware and cognizant of our actions in each moment. The key to dealing with regrets is to determine when regrets are positive and when they are not; we can use them to make amends in the present and then release the regret and guilt so that it doesn’t paralyze and bind us now and in the future.

In conclusion; we are all fallible, we all make mistakes. We will always have regrets for things we did or didn’t do. The key to emotional freedom and empowerment is to learn from our past mistakes, to use regret to motivate us to move beyond fear, acting in spite of fear, and to live to our full potential. Take action now, live from your heart to avoid ending life with regrets, but, forgive yourself when you make mistakes and immediately make amends with others when you wrong them.

You can comment on this newsletter by going to www.patrickwanis.com/blog   if you have received this newsletter as a forward and would like to receive all of my newsletters please enter your email address on the home page at PatrickWanis.com.

I wish you the best and remind you “Believe in yourself -You deserve the best!”

Patrick Wanis Ph.D.

Celebrity Life Coach, Human Behavior & Relationship Expert & Clinical Hypnotherapist
www.patrickwanis.com

Reporter:                    Steven Slater, a flight attendant on JetBlue, just got fed up with a passenger, grabbed a beer off the cart and went out the emergency chute. So, what do you think is going on there? That’s kind of snapping in the workplace, isn’t it?

Patrick Wanis:          Well, most of us would equate it to snapping in the workplace except fortunately, he didn’t engage in any acts of violence. I mean, it wasn’t a situation where he had any weapons or he had access to weapons fortunately. Yes, he did respond in a verbally violent manner from what I understand in terms of grabbing the intercom, I think, and either cussing out all of the passengers or cussing out that particular passenger. I also understand that when this passenger was taking the bag down, he apparently hit Mr. Slater in the head which would obviously also trigger Mr. Slater’s anger.

I think the first key point here is to say that any time that a person snaps in a workplace or loses it or responds in a manner that doesn’t seem to make immediate sense, we know that they’re under a lot of stress and that stress usually has little to do with the workplace and it’s usually stress from outside of the home. When I’m leading training programs for companies and corporations, the first thing I say is understand that your employees and we as humans cannot separate our personal life from our business life. That means we bring from home all of our stuff to work.

Now, having said that, it’s interesting because now, reports are coming out that his mother is dying from lung cancer and there have been other problems within his own personal life. So what happens is we completely change as human beings in a workplace setting when our stress level skyrockets.

So here is a man that probably was already under a lot of stress and all he needed was the trigger to do as what you would call to ‘snap’, and that trigger was this passenger not following the rules, standing up and trying to reach for his bags when he’s not meant to, et cetera. The effects of stress cannot be overstated here; we completely change personality, temperament and even control of our emotions when the stress becomes too much. At that point, we can engage in all sorts of strange and erratic behavior that can include violent behavior.  [For a detailed explanation and list of the effects of stress and a list of the symptoms of stress, read Patrick Wanis Ph.D.’s article “You’re not crazy” from August 2008. Click here: http://patrickwanis.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/19/youre-not-crazy/]

We also don’t know if Steven Slater was on any sort of medication? Because medication can also lead to acts of violence or to the possibility that he wasn’t in fully control of his emotions. Having said that, maybe he snapped when he cussed the person out and at that point, he said okay, this is all too much for me. I am out of here. So he grabs a beer and he opens the emergency chute and he literally gets out of here.

The next question you’re going to ask I’m guessing is, “Why is so much of the public on his side? Correct?

Reporter:                    Yes, sure.

Patrick Wanis:          This is an example where Steven Slater represents a lot of the common frustration within the public against people who are so rude on airplanes. He has become the poster boy for the resentment that people have with other rude people on airplanes. So in many ways, people are saying, you know what, we like Steven Slater because he did what we all wished we could have done which is, you know, cuss out this person that’s being rude.

I think many of us have been on an airplane and experienced the situation where we see other people just ignoring the rules, doing whatever they want, either trying to cram their bags into a space that won’t fit or being belligerent or being rude or being obnoxious or even being almost verbally violent to flight attendants when they’re being requested either to sit down, straighten their chair, turn off the electronic devices or remain in their seats with the seatbelt fastened. So I think he’s simply reflecting and is a symbol for a lot of the frustration that many people feel towards those people who are rude and just don’t care about the rules.

Reporter:                    Yes, and it might be even wider than airlines – crazy drivers and just the rudeness that we all encounter in our lives.

Patrick Wanis:          Well, I think you’ve raised a great point. Now you’re talking about what I believe to be a sort of common sentiment and that is that there is a lot of stress in today’s society, more than we’ve ever experienced and not just because of the technology but because of everything happening around the world and its effect on us and we’ve seen more and more people just saying, “You know what? Screw it. I don’t care,” and they break the rules. They have less and less control over their emotions and that’s what we’re talking about here. The two key points are number one, being considerate and respectful towards other people and two, having control of your emotions.

Reporter:                    Right.

Patrick Wanis:          When we break the rules, we’re actually not being considerate of others. When we break the rules or we respond with anger or we respond with some sort of violence, whether it’s physical, mental, emotional or verbal, we’re also losing control over our emotions and I think that’s what you have seen.

Now having said that, that’s also what Steven Slater was doing in a sense that he said, “You know what? I’ve had it. I’m just getting out of here.” He did have other choices and this is where he was not fully in control of his emotions. When we’re in control of our emotions, then we understand in the moment that we have a vast array of choices as to how we’re going to respond.

Slater made two simple responses; one: to cuss out the passenger or the passengers on that plane and two: just to jump out of the emergency chute. He had other choices. He could have waited. He could have reported that passenger. He could have called over the police or the TSA and after that point, he could have said to his superiors I cannot handle this job anymore. I cannot handle the stress anymore. I’ve been here for so many years and this is not for my health. I already have too many other things outside of my life. And at that point, he could have resigned. His behavior wasn’t good in terms of being an example or a model for other people.

Reporter:                    Okay.

Patrick Wanis:          And what he’s doing in many ways is the same sort of thing that he was accusing the passenger of doing. He was breaking the rules.

Reporter:                    Yes.

Patrick Wanis:          So he says I’m mad at this passenger because he’s not listening to the rules. He’s not following the regulations so I’m going to cuss him out and then I’m going to break the rules and regulations and open up the emergency chute. Well, it really wasn’t an emergency so he was obviously breaking the rules.

Reporter:                    Right. So do you think there’s an element in terms of reaction from other people and supporting him from the economy in difficult financial times that’s yet another stressor and the reason why people feel stuck in jobs and that kind of thing?

Patrick Wanis:          I think yes. I think what you’re finding is that there’s a huge backlash whether you refer to it as The Tea Party, whether it’s individuals engaging in violence, whether it’s murder, whether it’s workplace violence. What you’re seeing is a backlash against fear. Lots and lots of people feeling fear and fear leads to stress and anxiety.

So it’s a combination of fear, anxiety and stress that’s making people respond in highly erratic ways. And so yes, I do want to respond specifically to your question about the economy; yes, it has a lot to do with the fact that there’s so much uncertainty which goes back to fear, uncertainty about jobs, uncertainty about the economy, uncertainty about our health, uncertainty about the future because we see the floods, we see the heat and the smog and clouds in Moscow. We see floods in China. We see the heat, the extended period of heat we’ve seen throughout America. There are just so many things on top of people’s heads that it’s like a boiling pot and the water is just boiling and boiling and instead of evaporating, it’s getting higher and higher until it spills over the pot and that’s what’s happening to a lot of people. They’re literally spilling over.

Reporter:                    And Steven Slater was apparently a microcosm of that and he did boil over.

Patrick Wanis:          Yes, he definitely did and I think a lot of people also had sympathy for him not just because of the way he reacted to that rude passenger but because he said I’m leaving this. I’m not putting up with this. I’m walking away and I think a lot of people sympathize with that because I think most people wish they could walk out of their job and many of us today don’t have that option. We don’t have that luxury because we’re living paycheck to paycheck.

We’re afraid of losing our job because we don’t know if we can get another. We don’t know how to pay our bills and what’s happening, of course; corporations are putting more and more pressure on their employees to produce more, perform better, perform faster and with less resources. Corporations are pushing employees to work harder with less rewards, less pay and when people leave, they’re not replaced and so more responsibility and more pressure is given to the other remaining employees.

Reporter:                    So, we have the rude people aspect and especially in the context of an airplane and then you have the take this job and shove it aspect of Slater quitting on the spot in a dramatic fashion.

Patrick Wanis:          Yes, take this job and shove it is a key element of this incident; the fact that this man said nothing is going to stop me. I’m just getting out of here. No one is going to hold me down and I want to reference two songs. There was that song from 1978 by country singer Johnny Paycheck, called Take This Job and Shove It.

Reporter:                    Yes.

Patrick Wanis:          Which often is a sentiment. You know, people are tired of corporations. People are tired of big brother as they say and then there’s another song that’s interesting. It was by REM, “Everybody Hurts” where you see in the music video clip all of thousands of people stuck in traffic on the highway and we hear their personal thoughts (sadness, loneliness, self-doubt, regret, hopelessness, stress, fear, etc) they all open the car door and get out of their cars and they begin to abandon the car and they walk away, and incidentally, that video was inspired by the German movie “Wings of Desire” which deals with the theme of humanity’s chronic pain and suffering. REM’s video of “Everybody Hurts” which shows people abandoning their cars en masse, was a symbol to say we’re leaving everything behind. We are in pain, we are tired, we are stressed, we’re not going to keep being part of this rat race, this rut; it’s not we’re giving up but we’re leaving it behind. We’re taking control of our lives. We’re no longer going to be the rat in the wheel that just keeps going round and round.

Reporter:                    And that word you said just now seems pertinent, the control, right? It’s a matter of just taking back control.

Patrick Wanis:          Yes, it’s very much about control. I think that’s a good point because when we experience so much pain, we say I’m getting out of here. I’m tired of being controlled. I’m taking control of my own life and I’m leaving. I’m getting out of this job. I’m quitting or I’m walking away from the situation. That can also be very empowering which is another reason why the public would probably relate very much to Steven Slater and now perceive him as a hero because they feel that he became empowered in that moment. He said I’m taking control now. No one is going to talk to me this way. No one is going to hit me with a bag. No one is going to treat me this way. I’m not going to let anyone be that rude to me anymore. And that was a symbolic gesture for other people. Other people go wow, we wish we could do this either in our workplace or even in a relationship or at home.

Reporter:                    Right.

Patrick Wanis:          It’s about that sense of I’ve got my power back and I’m in control. I’m now not going to let anyone do this to me ever again. I think the saddest part though is that he could end up being in jail.

Reporter:                    Yes. But after he gets out of jail, he’ll have a reality show of some sort probably.

Patrick Wanis:          Well, you know, he is already almost semi-famous and it will be interesting to see how much more publicity he gets. I promise you that all of the morning national TV shows will be vying very hard right now, begging him and offering him money to come on their show.

Reporter:                    I’m sure, yes.

Patrick Wanis:          And unfortunately, that’s part of the incestuous media today which is something has happened: Quick, let’s get them on and let’s ask every single detail. And by the very nature of exposing him, they make them famous.

Reporter:                    Yes.

Patrick Wanis:          Yes, more famous than infamous because they generate publicity and then a TV producer sees Steven Slater and says, look, everyone knows his name. Everyone is intrigued by him. There’s mystery. There’s interest. Let’s build a TV show around him because we know everyone will tune in.

Reporter:                    Yes. I appreciate you taking out the time to talk to me.

Patrick Wanis:          You’re welcome.

According to the police report, Brooke Mueller says her husband Charlie Sheen sat on her, strangled her, and held a knife to her throat on Christmas day.  Charlie Sheen was arrested on Christmas Day after Brooke Mueller, his third wife, told police he had pulled a knife on her and threatened to have her killed; Sheen pleaded guilty to misdemeanor third degree assault and could have gotten 3 years in jail but a judge sentenced Sheen to a 30-day jail term, and was ordered to undergo 36 hours of counseling on domestic violence.  Sheen will receive credit for time already spent in rehab and so he avoids any jail time.

Alan Stock:                Hello, Dr. Wanis. Good to have you with us.

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    Thank you.

Alan Stock:                So people are saying weird things about Mel Gibson. Of course, he seems pretty weird if you want to know the truth. But they’re not saying enough about some of the other people. You’re concerned about that?

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    Well, what I’m concerned about is the example of Charlie Sheen. Now, Charlie Sheen pleaded guilty to assaulting his wife. He actually did a plea deal so that they would drop some of the other more serious charges. Not only that, but it’s even being reported today on FoxNews.com and also on RadarOnline that Charlie Sheen’s wife, Brook Mueller, told officers that she was terrified because she claimed that Charlie Sheen threatened her on Christmas day saying, “I’ll kill you. Your mother’s money means nothing. I have ex-police I can hire who know how to get the job done and they won’t leave any trace.” Now, this is a guy that’s pleaded guilty. The judge only gave him 30 days – and as a result of going to rehab, he’s not even going to go to jail. But no one is complaining about this.

Alan Stock:                Well, she’s trying to get back with him though.

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    Well, regardless of whether she’s making the mistake of getting back together with him, here is a guy that actually put a knife to her throat for 20 minutes.

Alan Stock:                All right. Well, hold on. Stay with me, would you please?

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    Sure.

[Commercial break]

Alan Stock:                4:11 on Newsradio KXNT. Good afternoon to you. Dr. Patrick Wanis is joining us. He’s a behavioral expert.

                                    Dr. Wanis thanks so much for joining us. I do appreciate it. What I want to find out from you though is — we’re talking about people coming down on Mel Gibson but why they’re not coming down heavier on Charlie Sheen. And I don’t think that they shouldn’t come down on Charlie Sheen. I mean the guy has got a lot of problems. But here’s the deal. The deal is that it does make a difference, the fact that Charlie Sheen’s wife wants to go back with him. It does make a deal, I think, that Mel Gibson’s girlfriend wouldn’t even think of going back with him. I figured it does make a deal that Mel Gibson was arrested for drunk driving by the police in Malibu and spouted off all kinds of anti-semitic remarks and it does make a deal that with his girlfriend he repeated his bigoted racist behavior by threatening her and hoping that she was raped by a band of — and he went on to use the “N” word.

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    And what I wanted to do, Alan, with all due respect is challenge you on that because you’re saying that it’s okay, that we can give a free pass to Charlie Sheen because his wife says, “I’m going back to him.” The problem with that, Alan, is that most women who are battered go back to the man that battered them. That’s what we call Battered Woman Syndrome, that’s women who tend to think it’s okay for a man to abuse them. So let me ask you this, if Oksana said, “Oh, I’m going to go back to Mel Gibson. I’m going to forgive him,” does that mean we should then say, “It’s okay, Mel, everything you did is no worries anymore”?

Alan Stock:                Well I want you to understand where I’m coming from. I think that Charlie Sheen and Mel Gibson are both pieces of crap, I mean — period. I mean that’s just how it is. They both are. I mean — and there’s one not better than the other or worse than the other. I mean Charlie Sheen threatens to kill his wife and Mel Gibson acts like a two bit bigot and does what he does. Why would one be better or worse than the other? I agree with you. We should be condemning them both.

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    My point is to say that here we are: we jump all over Mel Gibson and I think primarily for two reasons. First: because he’s already made those racist remarks in the past and so we’ve already built up resentment against him. And then second: because we got to hear those tapes played over and over again. So let me ask you this, Alan. Do you think that you and I and everyone listening would have a different opinion if we happened to hear the recording of Charlie Sheen threatening his wife and saying, “I’m going to kill you” and who knows what else he must have said to her when he held a knife against her throat for 20 minutes.

Alan Stock:                I absolutely agree with you, totally. I think that if we had an audio recording of him doing that I think that people would be just as incensed. But what happens is people hear these things like they hear with Mel Gibson and they become angry at that and they tend to allow things like Charlie Sheen to be able to melt into the background. And I agree with you; they should not allow it to be melted into background. Again, I mean Charlie Sheen is just as big of a punk as Mel Gibson is. I agree with you.

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    Well, here’s my other concern that, I think, that as a result of what’s happened with Mel Gibson and Charlie Sheen, instead of everyone talking more about domestic violence, they’re actually talking less and here’s why.

Alan Stock:                Why?

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    The Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger gets up at a press conference and he begins to make a joke about it. He says, “Oh, you know, they’ve been able to contain the oil leak in the gulf, but they can’t contain Mel Gibson’s mouth.” And then he says, “Oh, everyone, you better watch your cell phones ’cause that might be Mel Gibson calling.” And he says this with a smile on his face; he’s making fun of it and instead of taking it as something that’s a very serious issue, which is domestic violence.

                                    Now, here’s another point. Kathleen Krenek is the executive director of Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence. She wrote an article for the newspaper Mercury News, and the headline is “Reports of Mel Gibson Tapes Offer Lessons in Domestic Violence.” And incidentally this is today’s newspaper [correction: article was posted online 2 days earlier - August 6, 2010.] But no way did she mention Charlie Sheen. She talks about Mel Gibson. She talks about the allegations and he hasn’t yet been charged. Yet the man that has been charged, the man that’s pled guilty, the man that admitted to assaulting his wife, she says nothing. Why?

                                    And that’s the question I’m posing. I think the problem here, Alan, is that we’re giving people free pass because we are bias, because we also have too much prejudice. You know, bias and prejudice isn’t always this negative, it can also be positive in the sense of favoritism, you know. ‘You’re my friend so I’ll sort of ignore what you’ve done wrong.’

Alan Stock:                Well, I don’t disagree with you on some level. I really don’t. The thing with Mel Gibson is that his comments were put over and over in front page of regular daily newspapers. So I mean I understand that that’s part of the reason we’re giving a lot more attention to it. But again, I’m going to agree with you. I don’t think one is worse than the other or one is better than the other. I think they’re both pieces of crap. In my opinion, they both are. And you know, I’m going to stand by that.

                                    Stay with me. I want to talk to you about Hollywood though, and where are they going with a brand new concept show which I find to be repugnant. I want to see what you think about it, okay?

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    I’m here.

[Commercial break]

Alan Stock:                All right. we’re talking right now with Dr. Patrick Wanis on Newsradio KXNT. He is a Behavioral Expert and a Celebrity Life Coach. It’s good to have you with us.

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    Thank you, Alan.

Alan Stock:                All right. I want to talk to you about something else also that caught my eye and I had to run this by you. You know, I think what’s going on with Hollywood is weird in general and what’s going on in “Reality TV” is very, very strange. They are now — Investigation Discovery has announced a development deal with Mark Burnett. You know, he’s the one who did Survivor, right?

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    Yeah, he’s one of the biggest reality producers.

Alan Stock:                Exactly.

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    If not the biggest.

Alan Stock:                The biggest, without a doubt. But they have announced the development deal with Mark Burnett to produce a talent-based competition with prisoners in the vein of American Idol, potentially entitled “Talent Behind Bars.” And they’re also — they’re saying that the essence of the show is to highlight people who have been convicted of non-violent crimes and misdemeanors. Maybe there’s somebody in the part of the country, that never had at a real chance to have a proper education and they have talent. They also want to develop a second show — and I’m not making this up, by the way – I think you might think so but I’m not. The second show they want to develop is called “Dancing Behind Bars.” It’s like ABC’s Dancing with the Stars.

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    Okay. Hold on, Alan. This is a joke, right?

Alan Stock:                No, I swear — I know — see, I knew you would think so.

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    [Laughter] I mean, come on.

Alan Stock:                I wish it was and I wish I could say “April Fools” but it’s not –

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    Dancing Behind Bars?

Alan Stock:                Yes, sir. I swear to you. I’m looking right at the release right here. I kid you not. I just got this hot off the press today. I’m not making this up.  

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    Well, let me ask you this, have they said which network is going to pick it up? Which network is going to air it?

Alan Stock:                They have not said that yet. The Broadcast & Cable Company has come out with the information on this and it’s under the heading of this Prison Idol, Talent Behind Bars and the second show they would develop would be this Dancing Behind Bars. But even such Talent Behind Bars, going behind bars, featuring prisoners in a setting that we’re going to be sympathetic with these people – it wants to make me heave.

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    Well, here’s the primary concern with that: the whole idea of putting someone in jail, putting someone in prison is to rehabilitate, punish, and prevent crime. So I don’t see how you rehabilitate them when you’re suddenly saying, “Hey, let’s teach you how to dance. Let’s do some choreography. Let’s see how you can sing. Let’s give you private singing lessons,” number one.

                                    Number two: you’re hardly punishing them when you’re saying, “You’re going to have a chance to be on television and when you get out of jail, well then you’ll get a record deal.”

                                    And then the third is: it hardly prevents someone from committing a crime when you’re saying, “Look, even if you go to jail, you could still become a reality TV star in America.” You know, the problem here is the same problem we had when we talked earlier about Charlie Sheen.

Alan Stock:                You’re right.

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    That there are always people don’t care about morality and will do anything for money.

Alan Stock:                For greed.

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    Yeah, for greed, to the extent that the people say, “You know what, we don’t care that Charlie Sheen beat up his wife. We don’t care that he put a knife to her throat. We’re still going to pay him $1.7 million an episode because we’re making so much money off him and because we have advertisers.” Now the same thing applies to what you’re just talking about, Alan – Mark Burnett on these two TV shows. The idea is we don’t care about morality. What we care about is: can we sell it? Can we make money? Can we get advertising? And it just comes down to the bottom line and that’s how we begin to completely destroy society.

Alan Stock:                I agree with you. Dr. Patrick Wanis is with us. So listen, if they want to do the consistent thing, you and I agree, cancel Charlie Sheen’s show or at least throw his butt off the show because he’s not worth it.

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    I would love to see someone who has the, you know, the balls, if we can use that expression, to actually do that. Where are all the groups that represent women and domestic violence survivors? Where are these groups? Why aren’t they screaming out? Why aren’t they saying, “This is wrong”? And let me just finish by saying this too, that, really, Alan, I think the most significant and critical point is that the incidents of Mel Gibson and Charlie Sheen, instead of highlighting this issue of domestic violence, are just serving to diminish and undermine our attention to the gravity of domestic violence which not only affects women, Alan, but also children: 1.3 million women are victims of physical assault by an intimate partner and half of those perpetrators also abuse children in the household. This is a really serious issue. This isn’t something for Governor Schwarzenegger to joke about.

Alan Stock:                I agree.

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    It’s not something for late night TV fodder. It’s something that’s a really serious issue. And yet I don’t see any groups talking about it. Where are they? And who is saying to the advertisers and to the producers of Two and a Half Men, “Hey, this has got to stop because you’re just promoting this guy. And you’re condoning domestic violence.”

Alan Stock:                Dr. Patrick Wanis, you and I are more in agreement than you want to believe. I’m 100% with everything you just said. And I appreciate you having taken the time to join us this afternoon. I thank you and we’ll talk more in the days ahead.

Dr. Patrick Wanis:    Thank you, Alan.

Actor Charlie Sheen was arrested on Christmas Day after Brooke Mueller, his third wife, told police he had pulled a knife on her and threatened to have her killed; Sheen pleaded guilty to misdemeanor third degree assault and could have gotten 3 years in jail but a judge sentenced Sheen to a 30-day jail term, and was ordered to undergo 36 hours of counseling on domestic violence.  Sheen will receive credit for time already spent in rehab and so he avoids any jail time.

According to Celebrity Life Coach and Human Behavior & Relationship Expert, Patrick Wanis PhD, we should separate the art from the artist but also adds that there needs to be a limit. Patrick Wanis also identifies favoritism and vested interest i.e. money and profits in the Charlie Sheen scandal.

Male:                          Alan Stock is driving you home on the news leader for Las Vegas, Newsradio 840 KXNT. 

Alan Stock:                4:12 at Newsradio 840 KXNT.  A good afternoon to you, I’m Alan Stock and I want to thank so much for joining us on this Monday afternoon, joining us right now in the KXNT live line Patrick Wanis, human behavior and relationship expert, talking about bad celebrities.

Patrick, good afternoon, and welcome to Newsradio 840 KXNT. 

Patrick Wanis:          Thank you, Alan. 

Alan Stock:                I appreciate you taking the time to join us.  So, you know, I got this interesting release that you sent to my producer and program director, Bob Agnew, that says that we need to separate the art from the artist and realize many artists and entertainers are dysfunctional and not necessarily morally good people.  That’s true, but how do you separate? 

I mean, if you’re looking at somebody on the screen like Mel Gibson knowing the things that he said about Jews and blacks and about women and things like that, how do you separate yourself from that kind of stuff? 

Patrick Wanis:          Well, it’s not easy to separate.  I think the first challenge we have is that we know too much about their personal lives.  In the sense that – I want to use this as an example, Alan, I know that you know who Cecil B. DeMille is? 

Alan Stock:                I do. 

Patrick Wanis:          He produced, he directed some of the biggest movies of all time and in fact he was one of the proponents of a lot of the religious movies such as “The Ten Commandments.”  So you would think there’s a reason this guy does “Samson and Delilah” and “The Ten Commandments.”  He must believe in what he does. 

Alan Stock:                Okay. 

Patrick Wanis:          But he was a married guy who had serial mistresses. 

Alan Stock:                Okay. 

Patrick Wanis:          So if at that time I knew that, does that mean that I no longer go to see “The Ten Commandments”? 

Alan Stock:                There’s somehow – there’s a difference.  I see it between – and I’m not justifying Cecil B. DeMille’s, you know; I’m not defending him at all, okay?  Even though the movies he made were great but, you know, he didn’t make the vile comments in public over and over and over again that Mel Gibson has made.  I mean, first there’s the comments about the Jews and the whole world and all, making all the worst, now is about the blacks.  He wasn’t using the word “black”, by the way.  It’s the other word he used.  And the vile attitude toward his girlfriend and supposedly hitting her when she had her kid, I think this is nothing that Cecil B. DeMille was ever even thought of doing. 

Patrick Wanis:          You’re right.  And in fact, before that, Mel Gibson’s first foray into controversy and saying bad things goes back to the ’90s when he made homophobic remarks. 

Alan Stock:                Right. 

Patrick Wanis:          But very few people castigated him over that, because they were happy to make lots of money off of him.  But let’s use another example, Alan: Alec Baldwin.  Look at what Alec Baldwin said to his daughter on the phone when he leaves the message and calls her a rude, thoughtless little pig.  Okay. 

Alan Stock:                And that was disgusting.  I, you know, I found that… 

Patrick Wanis:          But we have to stop watching – well, we have to stop watching whatever he does.  Now, here’s another example for you, Charlie Sheen.  He’s dated porn actresses.  He’s had problems with the law.  He was a cocaine addict.  His father called the police on him.  And the latest allegation is he pulled a knife on his wife.  Not only just threatened her, he pulled the knife on her.  But CBS or whoever is the producer of the TV show is going to keep paying him money because they’re making money off him.  So it comes to a point where we have to say to ourselves, “Is there a limit?  What is that limit?”  And I do agree there has to be a limit. 

Alan Stock:                All right, I’ll tell you what you’ll do.  Will you stay with me? 

Patrick Wanis:          Sure. 

Alan Stock:                Because I what to find out from you what that limit should be.  Where do we draw the line?  Where do we draw that limit, all right? 

We’re coming back and talk to Patrick Wanis.  At what point do you finally say enough is enough and you stop watching these people’s movies?  What is that limit?  I’m curious to hear what Patrick Wanis has to say.  We’re going to come on back and talk to him in just a moment right here at Newsradio 840 KXNT. 

Male:                          More of Alan Stock on Newsradio 840 KXNT. 

Alan Stock:                4:23 at Newsradio 840 KXNT.  I’m Alan Stock; Bob Agnew producing; Mark Thomas technically directing this afternoon – great to have you with us.  Right now, we’re talking with Patrick Wanis.  He is a Human Behavior and Relationship Expert, and we’re talking about, well, we’re talking about celebrities’… 

I guess, Mel Gibson, all that stuff that he said recently.  But, you know, you said something interesting before, and that was that there is a limit.  What is that limit when we finally say enough is enough; I can’t really go see this guy’s movies or buy his records or anything like that.

Patrick Wanis:          I think it has to be answered two ways.  First, Alan, it’s got to be a personal choice.  It’s got to be your own choice of saying, “I know, I’m clear in my own mind of what my limit is.”  And maybe to someone that limit is a sexist remark.  Maybe it’s a limit of a racist remark.  Maybe it’s a threat of death or violence.  It could be anything. 

But before I answer what I think might be an appropriate limit, I want to just give you a couple of other examples because everyone listening to this will relate, because you asked a moment ago, what is the limit for us watching a movie by an actor? 

Well, it’s not just actors who do all these bad things.  Michael Jackson was accused of pedophilia.  Chris Brown, the famous R&B singer, assaulted his girlfriend Rihanna.  Liza Minnelli was married and divorced four times. 

Alan Stock:                Yeah.  But, you know, there’s a difference between Liza Minnelli being divorced four times and Yusuf Islam – who used to be known as Cat Stevens – are asking for the death of people who disagree with the Muslim religion. 

Patrick Wanis:          Yeah.  I agree that there’s a huge difference.  But if we’re going to talk about violence, Russell Crowe took a phone and whacked it across someone’s head in a hotel room, but no one’s certainly mad at him in Hollywood.  Why?  Because they’re making money out of him – Joan Crawford, Academy Award-winning actress – okay, forget the fact that she was married four times, but she was accused of abusing her children.  Her daughter, Christina, recalled her mother dragging her from bed in the middle of the night, when she was age nine, to beat her over the head with a can of scouring powder. 

Alan Stock:                You’re absolutely right.  In those days, what happened was the movie industry… 

Patrick Wanis:          The studios. 

Alan Stock:                The studios controlled what went out to the public.  Now, as you alluded to – when we first started this discussion – we get all this information.  It’s on YouTube.  It’s on Facebook.  It’s on MySpace.  It’s on… 

Patrick Wanis:          Everywhere. 

Alan Stock:                It’s everywhere.  And now, we know everything about it.  And I would guarantee you, had we known today about Joan Crawford today, if she was trying to become a movie star today and we knew that she was beating the hell out of her kid, people would probably be turned off to her, too.

Patrick Wanis:          And the same with Bing Crosby, because his son says the same thing that his father was – in fact, two of his sons from his first marriage said that their father was abusive.  And yet, Bing Crosby was the crooner who made White Christmas famous.  I guess what I’m saying is, for me – and I want to answer your question properly about the limit – the first thing is there is a difference between what they create and who they are, unfortunately. 

Because I believe that most of the artists—actors, singers, dancers come from a place of dysfunction, meaning, there’s some pain, there’s some emotional instability and insecurity, need for attention, et cetera.  That’s what drives them to create the art.  That, however, does not justify their actions and it does not give them a free pass to do whatever they want.  And that’s why we have the law and we have this system of justice. 

What I’m saying is we don’t need to know every single detail.  I didn’t need to hear every single thing that Mel Gibson said to his ex-girlfriend.  It is important to know, “Hey, this guy made racist, sexist remarks.  He made threats of death and threats of violence.”  Now I say to myself, “Does this fit in with my morality?”  Well, obviously, it doesn’t.  I don’t think it even fits into anyone’s morality.  But now, do I say, “Am I going to be able to watch his movies or not?” 

Alan Stock:                The one thing for me, I mean I look at somebody like Vanessa Redgrave who, you know, is a huge bigot and a pro-Palestinian.  It’s hard for me to watch her movies.  It’d be hard for me to watch a Leni Riefenstahl movie knowing who she was, even though she’s regarded as a great artist in the ’30s.  But you know, I mean, she was a Hitler propagandist.  I mean, how do you watch things knowing where the people are coming from like that? 

Patrick Wanis:          And, Woody Allen.  Alan, what about Woody Allen? 

Alan Stock:                I agree with you.  Woody Allen is another crackpot.  And you know, I find myself, I’ll be honest with you, going to fewer and fewer and fewer movies, because of people like Woody Allen like I just – it’s just hard for me to sit.  I couldn’t sit through and watch Woody Allen in a movie or Alec Baldwin or some of the other people you’ve talked about. 

Patrick Wanis:          But Alan, this is the point.  If you were to find out who everyone is underneath, you won’t be seeing a lot of movies and TV shows because a lot of people in Hollywood are not necessarily nice people.  And a lot of people including athletes are not morally-worthy role models. 

Alan Stock:                So you got to pick and choose, basically. 

Patrick Wanis:          I think you do and I think you have to know for yourself what is your limit.  For example, maybe not a lot of people realized that Adolf Hitler was also a painter.  But Adolf Hitler murdered millions of people.  That’s not the same as someone who makes racist remarks or sexist remarks, nor does one justify the other. 

Alan Stock:                I know.  And that would be hard for me to have a Hitler painting in my living room.  I’d be very honest with you. 

Patrick Wanis:          Right. 

Alan Stock:                And I understand where you’re coming from.  Listen, I’m up against the clock.  Patrick, it’s been great.  You know, we’ve got to do this again.  I love talking to you about this and we’ve got to chat again.  Would you do that with me sometime? 

Patrick Wanis:          My pleasure. 

Alan Stock:                Patrick Wanis, Human Behavior & Relationship Expert.  People want to find you, how could they do it? 

Patrick Wanis:          Patrickwanis.com. 

Alan Stock:                That’s easy enough.  All right, Patrick thanks a lot for being with us.  We’ll talk again. 

Patrick Wanis:          Thanks, Alan. 

Alan Stock:                Take good care.

First a quick update:

****  Learn my coaching/therapeutic techniques – in response to numerous requests, look for an email this week when I will be offering for the first time, a training course on my “Subconscious Rapid Transformation Technique” (SRTT)

**** Interventions & addiction – If you had a friend or family member who was out of control and nothing works, what would you do to help them? Watch the series of four TV interviews I gave on The Morning Show:

When to do an intervention – Patrick Wanis PhD Pt.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrY-10AkqqE

Interventions & addiction – Patrick Wanis PhD Pt. 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSIQmd7ldgo

Interventions – can you help? – Patrick Wanis PhD Pt. 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRFOM73z4oo  

Interventions – How to do an intervention – Patrick Wanis PhD Pt. 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AcKI_MghbE

Now, let’s talk about cheating and if women are innocent or not.

In a press release I issued in October 2008, “So much wrong with women”, I responded to a book by Gary Neuman, a marriage counselor, who claims when men cheat it’s women’s fault because they don’t show enough appreciation to their man.  http://patrickwanis.com/blog/index.php/2008/10/09/so-much-wrong-with-women/

Neuman says women are to blame when men cheat. He says the no. 1 reason men cheat is “feeling underappreciated – a lack of thoughtful gestures” by the woman. He says cheaters are not the bad, rotten guys; “they can also be nice guys that get lost and do the wrong thing.”

In the above press release, and in subsequent interviews I gave, I revealed the major errors in Neuman’s conclusions. For example, first: no one else is to blame for the way we choose to respond to the way someone treats us. We cannot argue ‘you forced me to cheat’ or ‘you left me no other choice.’ Second: we alone are responsible and accountable for our own actions. While Neuman says that for 20 years he has heard the number one reason from men for their cheating is ‘feeling underappreciated’, I would argue that that is not the number one reason, rather, it is the number one excuse. I teach that cheating is about power, opportunity, instant gratification and lack of self-discipline and self-control.

(Read more of my responses in the transcript of the interview I gave to the syndicated radio show “Hits and Favorites” with Richard and Lori about “women to blame for men cheating” : http://patrickwanis.com/blog/index.php/2009/06/29/women-to-blame-for-men-cheating/ )

After reading my release, this week, one blogger on my website wrote a lengthy scathing comment, accusing me of favoring women and saying that “The bias against men in this article is glaringly obvious and pathetic.” Neoeritas wrote:

“Wanis like most others in our culture give women way to much movement while condemning men for the same failings…I suspect that his clientele are mostly if not exclusively female. I am also surprised that there is a PHD behind his name as one would think that someone with such a level of education would not make such sweepingly condemning statements to one gender. Women are not inherently innocent as our culture and they would like everyone to believe. They are just as capable of neglect, abuse, and cheating as men. And yes, they are also responsible for choosing their own responses.”

Neoeritas said that it is not anyone’s place to define what a ‘real man’ is: “Anyone who uses this statement is attempting to demean, degrade, and manipulate men.” Neoeritas also said that he can understand why a man would cheat:

“When a man cheats it very well could be due to his partner’s indifference and neglect.”

Yes, someone else’s actions can affect the way we feel. Yes, a constantly abusive partner (male or female) will affect our self-esteem, self-confidence and personal power if we are in that relationship long enough. However, the way that this abused person responds or reacts to the way they have been treated and the way they feel is a personal choice. It would be entirely incorrect to say that we are an island and completely immune from the way our partner or others around us treat us. Consider the people in concentration camps; one cannot argue that the abuses had no impact on the prisoners. Also, please consider Battered Woman’s Syndrome. If you research it, you will learn more about the long-term effects of abuse.

With regards to the gender behind the abuse: I entirely agree that both men and women are capable of cheating and betrayal as well as being abusive and neglectful. However, the statistics behind abuse reveal that men are more physically, mentally and emotionally abusive to women than women are to men. About 300,000 women are abused by a man in the US each year.

Now the bigger question remains: Are women inherently innocent “as our culture and they would like everyone to believe”?

Statistics reveal that women cheat almost as much as men do – though any of these statistics would be hard to quantify since much of it would be based on self-reporting i.e. that the cheater admits it to their partner or a researcher. Many men and women have cheated but been able to keep it secret.

This brings us to the next point, women seem to be much more discreet than men when it comes to cheating, and maybe they don’t boast about it or do it on grand scales with multiple partners the way some men such as Jesse James, Tiger Woods or David Boreanaz did. And if a woman were to cheat with multiple partners, we would most likely respond by saying that she must have a mental or emotional disorder.

Laurence Josephs is Psychology Professor with Adelphi University. Professor Josephs argues that it is the personality type rather than the gender that indicates whether a person might cheat or not. He says that people who have lower levels of empathy or experience less guilt tend to engage in more infidelity and; the people that are more prone to affairs and straying are “People who are higher in narcissism — whether they are male or female — are more likely to cheat. People who feel entitled to it, people who have what’s called avoidant attachment style where they tend to have more impersonal sex.”

Again, the reference to narcissism supports my teachings that cheating is primarily about power, opportunity, instant gratification and a lack of self-discipline – and therefore both men and women are prone to cheat.

As I wrote in response to Neoeritas:

“We are all capable of committing wrong or even evil acts, but again, statistics and studies reveal that men are more abusive than women are. And yes, in the past, I have had two girlfriends who cheated on me, and so I understand that women are not inherently innocent but also based on my understanding and knowledge of human behavior, I understand why they did it and that it had nothing to do with me – and yes, their actions along with other issues were motivated by opportunity and self-gratification. One at the time was still young with little life experience and little guidance – age 24, on vacation in Europe, and there was opportunity, along with attraction and a desire for self-gratification; there was also for her, deeper issues of self-sabotage.”

And this brings us to the final but potentially contentious point – something that is almost never mentioned: women betraying women. As we continue to read about various married men (celebrities, athletes and politicians) cheating and betraying their wife, the question remains are women betraying their own gender when they have an affair with a man that they know is already married?  

If you would like to read all of Neoeritas’ comments and my detailed response, go here:

http://patrickwanis.com/blog/index.php/2008/10/09/so-much-wrong-with-women/

If you want to read more about the psychological motivations behind cheating, read my Newsletter from July 2009:

http://patrickwanis.com/blog/index.php/2009/07/01/lies-cheating-and-betrayal/

If you would like to comment on this newsletter, go to www.patrickwanis.com/blog   if you have received this newsletter as a forward and would like to receive all of my newsletters please enter your email address on the home page at PatrickWanis.com.

I wish you the best and remind you “Believe in yourself -You deserve the best!”

Patrick Wanis Ph.D.

Celebrity Life Coach, Human Behavior & Relationship Expert & Clinical Hypnotherapist
www.patrickwanis.com