One of my favorite self-development writers, Steve Pavlina, suggested today that one make “bear bombing” a practice. Bears, according to Steve, are people who are only half-way awake in life, semi-hibernating through life. Bear bombing then, is giving intense feedback to people you consider to be “asleep.” Here is an example of what Steve considers a good bear bomb:
“Hey Maggie… Sure I’ll go to lunch with you. But then I’d like to show you this amazing place around the corner that I guarantee you’ve never seen before. It’s called a gym. And there’s this new thing people are doing called exercise. You’ve got to see it to believe it!”
There are several others suggestions in his bear bombing post, all around the same degree of intensity and harshness. So what does he say is the point of bear bombing? Well, he claims that it helps wake people out of their slumber…
Most bears will not take kindly to bear bombing; however, once a certain frequency of bear bombing is established (at least weekly), the bear will find it increasingly difficult to return to full hibernation. And ultimately the bear’s newfound consciousness may lead the bear to make some genuine changes to improve the bear’s living conditions. This has the net effect of improving the conditions for everyone, since a conscious, happy bear is a sight to behold.
This post sparked for me a couple of inquiries and criticisms, and as it stands I regard his bear bombing injunction as overly simplistic, slightly arrogant, and actually only marginally effective (and sometimes extremely ineffective). Below you’ll find several topics or dimensions that I’d like to consider in lieu of Steve’s bear bombing practice, especially as it relates to what it means to be a skillful human being on the path to greater awakeness.
All of these considerations are merely my own musings on various dimensions of what it means to relate to, and affect other people. But I think they are helpful considerations especially for those of us who want to have the greatest possible impact on those people we encounter. The first distinction I thought it would be helpful to make is the difference between what might be called masculine compassion and feminine compassion.
Mama & Daddy Love
Masculine compassion refers to the type of compassion I think Pavlina is most familiar with demonstrating and writing about. It’s the kind of compassion that will call it like it is, and try to shake another awake. This compassion is motivated by love, but by a love that isn’t buying into any degree of mediocrity or self-centeredness. It’s the kind of compassion you might get from an authority figure who scolds you for not setting your sights higher or acting with the principles you’re capable of. This compassion can sometimes sting! (as it did for me back when my junior high gym teacher gave me one hell of a paddling… Yes, I was raised in the Bible Belt.)
Feminine compassion on the other hand, also motivated by love, seeks to protect and nurture. It’s the impulse that one might have when they see their child fall of their bike, and immediately make sure that they aren’t hurt. It’s the type of compassion that first seeks to accept and encourage rather than challenge.
These distinctions are helpful, because they point to at least two possible ways of responding to someone who’s asleep or hurt, and my point is that each one can be effective and helpful given the right situation. Which brings me to the topic of permission and timing in regards to what Buddhists call right action.
Are They Ready and Willing?
When giving feedback, especially of the more masculine compassion oriented, there are two factors which are absolutely crucial. The first, permission, has to do with person or group you’re giving feedback to being actually being willing (at least partially so) to hear what you have to say.* Permission is vital, because if someone hasn’t agreed to hear your opinion about them (especially if it’s going to massively challenge their self-view or world-view) then the immediate response is one of rejection of resentment. Not to mention one is generally being a righteous dick-head when they go around dropping unsolicited bombs on people. This person, especially if they aren’t walking their talk and actually even if they are, will quickly lose whatever respect and leverage they may have had with others—and as a result their future effectiveness to give meaningful feedback.
Permission can be requested in a very simple way. In the case above, with Maggie, one could say, “Maggie, would you be willing to hear a suggestion I have for you concerning you health?” and then go about communicating the message in whatever way will work best. I’ve found that when I’ve actually taken the time to do this (and when other people have done this with me) it has a huge effect on how I’ve heard and responded to that message. That person is basically saying, “I care enough about you to ask before I try and obliterate your boundaries.”
And obliterating boundaries, no matter how skillfully done, also relies heavily on the factor of timing. What comes to mind are stories of Zen Masters who at the perfect moment said something to their students that completely cracked them open to a greater understanding of reality. This can also be the case when someone has a powerful message to deliver, as with Pavlina’s bear bombs. Oftentimes one must not only be willing, but also ready, to hear something which can shake apart their view of life (which will likewise transform their actions in life).
* = In rare cases there can also be unspoken permission, say in certain teacher-student or parent-child relationships, where one party doesn’t have to explicitly ask for permission to give feedback. These cases however are rarely treated with the kind of dignity and understanding they deserve.
Levels + Lines = Humility
The next two sub-headings are related to “Integral Theory,” so if you’re new to that concept then you might want either skip this section or check out a little primer into the Integral Approach. The basic idea I wanted to share here has to do with recognizing various degrees of intelligence each individual has in different areas of their lives. Some people are more developed (aka at a higher level) in certain types of endeavors or activities. It’s almost always possible to find some intelligence in another person that is more developed then ours, and so in some way or another most people are more awake then us. This recognition points to the complexity of the human individual, and may even encourage us to think twice before dropping bombs based on the simple—although occasionally helpful—distinction between awake and not-awake.
The Prime Directive
Another idea that can be found in theorist Ken Wilber’s writing (and probably elsewhere in some form or another), is what is called the prime directive. Not completely unlike the Prime Directive found in Star Trek, where the Star Trek crew does not interrupt the natural process of growth and development (and sometimes failure) within a less developed civilization, the integral prime directive goes a step further, and says that having people become more integrated and healthy wherever they are in their overall development, is actually more vital then trying to have people keep pushing, pushing, and pushing to grow. Part of the reason being that when people have their “stuff together” growth tends to happen of its own accord. I think that dynamic could be seen with a child who growing up with parents that have their trips together, tend to at least be as healthy as their parents. Granted this isn’t always true, and that there seems to be a certain X factor with growth (why does anyone grow at all!?), it makes sense to live in a world where we honor other people where they’ve stopped in their development. That is, until we’re needed to step in and give someone a hand in completely transforming their identity. As Stuart Davis puts it, we’re agents in the mystery.
Intrinsic Value is Priceless
Part of the intuition behind honoring the prime directive is seeing that at their core all people have the same intrinsic value. We’re all equally and infinitely valuable manifestations in this crazy cosmos. And this isn’t a belief, but is something which can be directly intuited and known in any moment. Simply walking down the street and making eye contact with someone, one catches a hint of the unlimited perfection of that person. And not only every person, but everything. Granted some people are more extrinsically developed, holding intrinsic value in mind, helps set the ground for skillful action.
So if we’re really interested in growth, boths ours and others, it’s my contention that we’ll keep some of these distinctions in mind, and constantly fine-tune our ability to say what needs to be said, when it needs to be said, and how it needs to be said. Smart Bombs all the way up and all the way down!
[this article has been cross-posted on GenerationSit.org]
Amazing post, Vince. Pavlina’s ‘Bear Bombing’ didn’t sit quite right with me and you were able to compassionately parse out exactly what his approach lacks.
Your thoughts also have a particular relevance to my own life- they shed some light on my pattern of mostly masculine compassion.
Thank you.
Thanks Sean, I appreciate the feedback.
I think Steve’s “bear bombing” was meant to be tounge and cheek. I sincerely doubt you would go out and say those things to people. Aside from being incredibly rude and pretentious, I doubt it would really cause the kind of awakening you want.
I think the message has more to do with trying to encourage people to adopt a better life for themselves.
Steve’s entire blog is built around this. Trying to get people to open there eyes.
It is all a matter of perspective. If you went back 50 years and showed the public many of the anti-smoking commercials out right now many of them might be offended. Perhaps Steve is just ahead of his time…
I think Steve is ahead of his time for sure, and my point is that people “ahead of their time” have an obligation to become more skillful with people who haven’t yet learned some of the lessons they have already mastered. Especially when they have such a large readership, and such a powerful impact on people…
Steve’s message is a double edged sword. On the one hand his single-pointed approach can in fact challenge people to adopt a better life. On the other hand his message (and I think the post I comment on is a good example of this) can degrade into overly simplistic and arrogant-tinged message.
That and self-development almost always misses the point of self-transcendence (another story for another time maybe…).
Thanks for the comment by the way Scott. Looks like you have a nice little development blog yourself!
Vince, great stuff. “Bear Bombing” was Pavlina’s “worst. post. ever.”
But Pavlina’s post and your commentary got me thinking about how to faciliate growth and change. As a coach, my job depends on it! And my job is my calling–what I feel I’m here to do in this lifetime.
One thing I’ve been thinking about is the difference between self-mastery and facilitating change with others, and how radically different these skill sets are!
For years I’ve read books and listened to tapes solely to deal with my own problems. As a coach, I’m finding that this is only marginally helpful to facilitating change with others.
Skillful communication involves taking other’s perspectives, empathy, understanding a multiplicity of various types and styles of understanding the world, and “sensory acuity” (the ability to recognize subtle body language in others and utilize it for skillfully facilitating change).
I think Pavlina’s “Bear Bombing” fails for the following reasons:
1) Bear bombing fails to get rapport first.
The first step to facilitating change is to accept the individual as they are, to authentically love the other. And they must feel loved and accepted before they will listen!
2) Bear bombing is a personal attack and is very likely to be felt as one.
Only those who like to fight will be motivated by being attacked. It is much better to skillfully make suggestions like asking permission, as you said.
3) Bear bombing is ego-driven.
It’s obvious that they one who benefits from such sarcastic comments and practical jokes is the jokester. This kind of tactic is far from loving or well-intentioned. I think calling it masculine compassion is giving Pavlina too much credit! It’s masculine derision in most cases, and only masculine compassion when directed in a playfully competitive context (e.g. two macho guys).
4) Bear bombing ignores types.
There are at least 9 motivation styles, and possibly hundreds. I find more every day in my coaching practice and NLP research. To use the same tactic with everyone is bound to be unskillful. Personally I HATE practical jokes, as I was abused verbally and physically on a daily basis for years by other kids growing up. This kind of tactic would just piss me off.
5) Bear bombing simply doesn’t work.
Harrassing and annoying people is a poor tactic to wake people up. It’s inflexible and usually pisses people off without changing their behavior or attitudes. It’s a great way to lose friends and create enemies and turn people off to personal development altogether–except in rare cases when you are playing jokes on people who like to play jokes on people.
If you wanted to motivate Pavlina, bear bomb him. For everybody else, there are far more effective and skillful means for helping.
And I’m in the sneaky “don’t ask permission to help someone change” camp. The world is going to blow up if we don’t change now, and we all like to be sold on stuff that actually legitimately helps us. But the keys are real selflessness, love, and studying skillful means of loving communication, and making suggestions rather than commands or demands. Tell inspiring stories, elicit a person’s values and connect them with new behavior, etc.
With the overweight woman, it’s harsh and mean and ineffective and stupid to sarcastically tell her about “this place called a gym.” Instead connect with her first, find out what she most values (it’s likely comfort and connection, as many overweight women fall into this pattern), and then subtlely support her in linking up these values with exercise (invite her to join you–her friend–to come to an exercise class that feels good, for example).
Anyway, enough ranting. I just hate to see intelligent, influential, inspiring, amazing people I admire like Pavlina spread absolutely terrible ideas like “bear bombing.”
~duff
Oooh, ooh, let me try:
“Hey Steve… Your practise of ‘bear bombing’ is a great way to get up people’s noses and demonstrate to your family, friends and blog readers your arrogance and self-importance!”
Do you think it would work?