Companion audio recordings are produced and spoken by the author. This eBook draws heavily from The Weisbrod Digest of Seminars Programs.

Why indeed!

How often do you hear that overweight people simply eat too much. But if that was the problem, the solution would be simple, wouldn't it? Of our five senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste) the sense of taste is at the bottom of the list. So the solution should be simple: Just eat less!

When that fails, we're told that it's the kind of food we eat. One group tells us we eat too many carbohydrates and another that proteins and fats are the culprits. Who would not be willing to eat the required foods if a solution would be the result?

The weight control gurus all agree that too much refined junk food is bad; but if kinds of foods are the problem the solution would also be simple. Stop eating junk foods and eat the best kind of food–although there is some confusion about what is the best kind of food. (I might offer some insight along these lines as you read along.)

We get snowed by technical terms such as ketosis, thyroid, hypothalamus, insulin, triglycerides, and the glycemic index. If organs or hormones are the problem, the solution would be to treat the overweight condition medically–a pill, a surgical procedure, whatever. Many of these medical attempts have turned out to be a disaster.

There's no doubt that most of the overweight population would be willing to make any adjustment if the results would be to reach and maintain a perfect weight.

What about the exercise crowd? We're told that if we do certain kinds of exercise we will metabolize fat like a blast furnace. All that is needed is a good pair of running shoes and a place to walk or run–or a treadmill. If that was the solution why don't more take this option?

For awhile shrinks, like myself, were telling everybody that the problem was a combination of a poor self-image and poor motivation. So we helped pumped up our patient's self-esteem and they did better, but they didn't permanently lose the weight.

What I'm about to tell you carries a lot of scientific evidence as a result of fossil discoveries, radio-carbon and isotopic dating systems. The consensus is shared by the sciences of geology, archeology, paleontology, and anthropology.

There remains strong opposition to this field of science, and this opposition keeps much of what I'm about to tell you out of the mainstream of our educational system.

For a long time, many believe that God created the Earth and all life about six-thousand years ago. There are a few Creationists that still insist this six-thousand year time-frame is correct. But with the preponderance of difficult-to-refute evidence showing the planet is about four and a half billions years old, most modern biblical scholars now accept this geological view.

Various carbon dating systems have been checked and rechecked over decades and the numbers continue to hold up.

Some creationists say, "But the scientists keep changing their minds as they find new fossil evidence."

That statement is incorrect--there's little "mind changing" ...only fine-tuning or verification of already known information.When you hear or read news media headlines such as "new discovery has scientists rethinking old ideas." ...that's media hype motivating you to read the story under the headline. For example, in the past couple of years there has been a couple of new hominid finds that could predate "Lucy," an Australopithecine fossil. This discovery has the potential of pushing back the hominid time-line, but overall, few of the basics have changed over the past several decades.

You most certainly have heard of the gene mapping study research called the Genome Project, With this and other research there's a rapidly growing mountain of evidence that shows the scientific speculation to be correct. Archeology and paleontology have always been a connect-the-dotes & make-educated-guesses type of science, but over the years the dots are approaching a solid line.

Why would anyone doubt the integrity of science? In Charles Darwin's time it was heresy, even a crime, to suggest that man didn't suddenly appear as a creation of God. Any other idea would indicate that God's most important creation (humans?) wasn't perfect from the beginning. Darwin himself, a devout Christian, was very troubled by his own theories.

Darwin's theories of evolution suggested that all animals, including man, started from a rather poor beginning and then adapted to their environment with the passage of time–of course a radical view for the time. You need to understand that 100 years ago men of science lived in crowded and extremely civilized University settings, so Darwin's Galapagos Islands field work was rare and unique for the time.

Well over a century has passed since Darwin's ideas were first published, and some have proven inaccurate. But what scientific theories haven't had revisions and improvements with the passage of time?

You may ask; what earthly value is it for us to worry about ancestors dating back six-thousand or six million years? Let me provide an overview so you can come to your own conclusions.

It's not hard to guess how mammals arrived on a planet that was once dominated by reptilian, bird-like, egg-laying dinosaur rascals. When did the world become dominated by fuzzy, nursing, live-birthing mammals?

During the Jurassic era, it was very likely that a small mole-like mammal lived underground and thereby survived being eaten into extinction by the carnivorous dinosaurs. The asteroid strike caused a dust cloud that covered the planet like a shroud. This dust cloud blocked the sun, and caused temperatures to plummet below freezing. This event happened 65 million years ago.

Our little mammal simply burrowed deeper and survived on popsicle-like roots. In a year or so as the sun broke through the freezing dust cloud and these little guys found themselves in the company of a few small hibernating amphibians and reptiles, some fish, and insects whose eggs could survive freezing. The big dinosaurs were all gone! With only a tiny fraction of their former enemies, mammals were a species destine to thrive, and so they did.

The strong evidence of a Yucatan asteroid strike really helped establish a time-line for everything that followed.

After the passage of another 35 million years,  the hominoid arrived; gorillas, orangutans, chimps, etc. In another10 million years (or so), enter our bipedal hominid group.

During the past half century, many paleo-anthropologists had difficulty accepting their own fossil evidence. The fossil evidence has bipedal hominids dating back millions of years, and more troubling is the cranial evidence shows that this ancient hominid had a brain only slightly larger than that of a chimpanzee. How could that be?

To this day, so-called modern man is thought to date back only 100,000 years, and  even some scientists hate the thought of human-like ancestors predating our group by millions of years. But the evidence is compelling.

It seems to me that God would have worked within his overall plan for life. I haven't seen convincing evidence to the contrary, but of course, I'm not a theological scholar.

It's only guesswork to suggest that hominid split off from hominoid. They could have just as easily have been a separate species altogether, although the recent genetic evidence suggests otherwise.

The Genome Project indicates that the human genome is nearly identical to the genome of a chimpanzee, and that strongly suggests that our genome would be even closer to that of the Australopithecus.

What is important about this? Well, Australopithecine very likely survived several million years with a brain too small to make tools or control fire. They certainly  wouldn't have been able to compete as hunters with the lightning fast carnivore cats that lived on the same African savanna. They would have been the hunted rather than the hunter.

So it looks like the Australopithecine group survived twenty to thirty times longer than Homo sapiens. Does that surprise you? I was shocked when I first became aware of that.

What are we missing if we discount the importance of the Australopithecine lifestyle? Let me tell you a story.

About 5 million years ago, a diminutive hominid couple loped across the African savanna, arms swinging at their sides. In this time, long-long ago, the males and females stayed in love for life. They maintained an isolation from the other members of the species because they required a large tract of land to supply their food needs. Isolation was necessary during this time. The savanna, as compared with the rain forests, had a somewhat meager food supply.

These hominid, with their chimpanzee-sized brain, must have lived on the roots, shoots, tubers, seeds, fruits and other plant parts they could gather on the open spaces of the savanna. They were opportunistic gathers and foragers, but never hunters--their small brain certainly precluded hunting.

As bleak as this sounds, these Australopithecine folks were an extremely healthy group. How is that known? It's known from the record for hominid longevity that I've been telling you about. They couldn't have been the fearful and disease-ridden species as sometimes described, and they certainly did not have a short life expectancy. Such ideas have long been abandoned by paleo-anthropologists. No species would survive such a long time under such dismal conditions.

And remember, Australopithecus accomplished this record of longevity (for a species) without the benefit of our huge cerebral cortex.

New fossil evidence is constantly being excavated, but it all points in the same direction; pushing the hominid envelop to an even earlier time frame which shows this early hominid as even more remarkable.

But how did they make it with such a small brain in the same neighborhood with physically superior predators such as the saber-toothed tiger?

Well...heaven help the cat that made the judgment error of viewing these slow moving folks as lunch. At thirty yards, just out of springing range, such a cat would become intimate with a lemon-sized stone rocketing at 100 miles per hour with the real possibility of removing an eye or breaking a jaw.  If the first stone missed, it would be followed by a second, and a third aimed at the cat's rapidly retreating behind. (It's certainly in our genes to love baseball.)

This non-lethal rock-throwing defense is in the same category as the quills of a porcupine or the offensive spray of a skunk.

After millions of years, however, this archaic formula started to fail. Perhaps it was a climate change or a change in the population balance. You'll need to read some paleo-anthropological textbooks for clues to what might have happened. The Australopithecine formula needed to be reorganized.

So Australopithecus was followed by Homo habilis. They were taller with a larger brain, but surprisingly, not faster or stronger. This hominid had enough brain power to begin making crude stone tools and maybe to control fire, but they were not smart enough, or social enough, to become hunters. They probably remained foragers, which in turn locked them into the same single family unit and home-based lifestyle of the Australopithecus.

The Homo erectus was the transition species to our group. They had better control of fire and made more sophisticated tools.

It wasn't until our group of Homo sapiens and the Neanderthal that the current level of brain power existed. But beyond brain size, early modern folks, perhaps starting with Cro-Magnon, had bilaterally specialized brains that could think in groups of threes. This is likely the last major change in hominid physiology, and is extremely important in the overall scheme of things.

The triad brain could couch ideas in language in one brain hemisphere while imagining the concept in the other brain hemisphere. But the amazing part is the incredible cognative jump unique to humans as ideas form into an abstract concept–it's quite a mental juggling act.

As this lateraliztion was developing in the Homo sapiens brain, it made possible the invention of things such as agriculture and domesticated animals.

Agriculture allowed humans to band together and protect themselves from their arch enemy, the predatory cats. The downside to this banding together, however, was it required a set of rules not necessarily in harmony with nature–that is, related to gathering food and individual self-defense. These ancient farmers were able to alter a system that had functioned well for the millions of years that had gone before. One change is monogamy was no longer critical for survival. (*whew* That caused some big time conflicts, dontchaknow!)

How can Archeologists possibly guess when such a brain lateralization took place?

It's done by reading the substantial carbon-dating records of artistic creations on tool handles, cave art, and other artifacts. These dating studies can be time-lined with the earliest approximating of a culmination of this neurological event. A bilaterally specialized brain is essential to create carvings and cave art.

Well, it's a little more involved than that, but I think you get the general idea.

What do you think? If a group of Hominidae survived successfully for millions of years and they have the same metabolism–the same basic physiology–do you think there is something to be learned?

It's obvious that these Hominidae lived on course roots, tubers, fruits, and other plant parts, with only a tiny bit of animal products. So overall, their metabolism was designed to tolerate very little fat and very little protein.

They covered many miles every day over rough savanna terrain gathering their food. Perhaps the level of physical demands would be equal to a modern day Marathon–and they did it every day!

The most recent nutritional research is giving us a message that moves in one direction. We are told more and more that we should eat more complex carbohydrates and get more aerobic types of exercise. The research, especially the epidemiological studies, show the following: Too much fat and protein coupled with a sedentary lifestyle will lead to many of the chronic degenerative diseases that cause death and disability to some seventy percent of the population. The overweight condition is only a symptom of this.

So you may ask: "Carl, are you saying that if we all moved to the African savanna and foraged for a living we would all live longer and be thin and healthy?

Yes, but there are a couple of obvious problems with that. The twenty-first century savanna is more arid than during Australopithecine times, and of course, there are too many of us to be offered the space necessary for foraging. But that isn't to imply that we shouldn't consider coming as close as possible to the balanced lifestyle that served our ancient ancestors so well.
References: Life's Story (The WDS Sampler) C. Weisbrod, WDS Publishers 2002
The Australopithecine Diet, The 5000 Millennia Exercise Program: The Weisbrod Digest of Seminars 2001. Some editing: May 2004.

Question: Do you think any of the get-rich-schemes that I get in my email inbox are actually legitimate?

AskCarl: I'm so glad you asked. Get ready for a long answer to a short question.

 Do you frequently see in your email box, wonderful offers of quick-easy money? There's the ubiquitous MLM programs that promise if you do just a few simple things you could stand to make $20,000 a month and more.

Some are more conservative, but still make it sound that if you spring for anywhere from five bucks to a few hundred you are almost guaranteed to have money pouring in your mailbox in a matter of days. There are also the programs that can almost guarantee you tens-of-thousands of folks hungrily flocking to your website. (The operand word here is "almost.")

As I thought about writing this article, I looked in my email programs trash-bin and the average cost seems to be under a hundred dollars and the promised income appeared to average about $5000 per month. They all promised very little effort is necessary (get rich while you sleep) and very little need for ability or talent.

Let me do a little imagery with you. I want you to imagine that you invented a program that had the following modest benefits:

If someone had enough education to use a PC with an Internet connection, and would be willing to work a forty-hour, eight-to-five-week, they could expect to earn about $1200 a month, or about $15,000 a year. You warned them though, if they missed more than a day a month, they would be fired from the program.

To get a lousy $15,000 a year they had to put in the time, and there would never be any benefits, no raises in pay, and no promotions.

That's somewhat equivalent to an entry-level job that pays about $7 per hour, something like security or restaurant work. It would provide a roof over your head and food on the table, but little else.

Put that on the net and you know it would be laughable in the light of the other offers found there. Any respectable MLM promoter would dry out the inside of his nose sniffing at your puny little offer.

[Ed note: I mention MLM scams here, but happily these have been dying-on-the-vine since I originally wrote this article in 1999.]

The difference (in our fantasy), is this program of yours is guaranteed to work at least at the same level as a job as a security guard or kitchen help. But there are some surprising advantages. Here they are:

You wouldn't be working for a company that valued you about as much as a lug-nut on the tire of their delivery van. You wouldn't have a boss with sadistic impulses that loves this position of power over you. If you're female, there wouldn't be the sexual harassment that is widespread in many entry-level jobs. If you had kids, you could keep them home (although they would need to leave you completely alone during working hours). For a family, your spouse could do the same process and that would give you a $30,000 household income, which isn't too shabby for a family.

But. . . do you know what? I'm sorry but nothing like that exists! Do you know how I know? Follow along:

Go back to your imagination: Let's say you did invent a program that if someone worked a forty-hour week they could expect to make $15,000 a year, and stay at home.

Guess what would happen. As soon as the news leaked out of your program you would hear a knock at your door. It would be Microsoft's Bill Gates, smiling warmly at you. He would invite you to join the Microsoft family as a partner.

Before you could decide on Bills offer, you would get a call from the President of the United States. At a word from you, he would send Air Force One to pick you up and fly you to the White House as his special guest.

Why? Because your idea would replace the welfare system and quickly wipe out the national debt. You would have banking CEOs slobbering at your loins hoping you would endorse their credit systems. The credit potential of millions of new folks making $15,000 a year would be astronomical. The economy would soar and you would be a national hero.

Since I don't see anything like that on the news, I know nothing like that exist--and probably won't--let alone the schemes and scams that promise those ridiculous numbers. (Good grief, they must think we're all stupid to fall for those crazy ideas!)

So, I hope I haven't dashed any dreams of quick-easy  money. If I have, let me tell you this. If you have a good idea for a product or service, and if you build a website to display that product or service, and you're willing to work hard for -0- pay for a while, you can make it.

I would like to help you avoid the mistakes I've made as I searched for programs that would support my goals. Guess what I found out fairly recently? The system I once used to build my private practice 30 years ago is the same one that still works today!

Realizing this was quite a shocker. It just goes to show that even when technology is moving at the speed of light, some things, I guess, will always remain the same. I'll list the old tried-and-true stuff below:

(a)  Lots of personal contact: But rather than dinner speeches, doing lunch, and cocktail parties, it's email, auction sites, and maybe message boards, and chat rooms. [8-03 Ed Note: From the time I originally published this, things have changed. The rip-off scams and prono sites have corrupted email until now I suggest other forms of advertising.]   

(b) Lots of follow-up: But rather than phone calls and thank you notes, its e-mail and e-zines. And that's all there is to it!

(c) You gotta work your butt off!

Well, to answer the above question, writers of country music say that they can’t write good tear-jerker lyrics until they have experienced at least one broken heart.

On a more practical note, the broken heart is probably necessary for emotional growth not unlike the physical learning when a child finds out the hard way to not touch something hot. At the very least, the broken heart is life experience that teaches us to be careful how we invest our emotional energy.

It makes me chuckle thinking back to the patient that said to me: “I never signed up for this class!”

Here are the features of a broken-heart. There are feelings of rejection and great loss. The problem is reactive, and that means the pain is a reaction to something; in this case a blow to the person’s emotional stability. The problem is subjective, meaning that even though there is another person involved, the real pain is from over-reactive thoughts that have little direct relationship to the other person. The thoughts take on a cyclic/depressive pattern that in time will become obsessive. Salient features are agitation, depression, pessimism, loss of efficiency, sleep problems, poor judgment, anger, and even suicidal thoughts.

Scientific types have egos that make it difficult to draw from other scientific disciplines. Nevertheless, I’ve been forced to look away from the research of the behavioral scientist to find answers to this perplexing problem.

If you’ve read the weight control chapter of this eBook, you will see that I found answers withing the realm of the archeologist, et al., rather than the behavior scientist or nutritionist.

The conflict broken-hearted folks often experience is the inability to let go even when logic tells them that to stay hooked in will bring only pain and misery. Why is this so? Strangely enough, a conflict like this is better understood by the physicist than the psychologist.

Physics is the science that deals with the laws of matter and energy. These laws tell us that matter isn’t really solid–at least not like we usually think of solid.

The building block of all matter, the atom, is mostly space. If the nucleus of an atom was the size of a basketball and the placed on the fifty yard line of a football field, the closest speck of matter, the electron, would be way out in the bleachers somewhere.

Atoms make up elements, which become molecules and compounds that make up all matter. So you see, everything is mostly space!

That which makes it seem solid is the energy bond that glues together every atom, molecule, and the entire universe. If you unglue just a couple of pounds of atoms you can get one hell of an explosion that will (and sadly has) leveled entire cities.

Are you still with me? The point I want you to get from this is energy holds the universe together, and everything else is dependant on it.

I’ll stop the physics lesson now if you can accept the all matter and energy are inseparable–so back to psychology.

The human thought processes take the form of negative and positive energy. Positive energy is usually constructive; negative energy is often (but not always) destructive.

There is an energy investment in thought the same way that there is a money investment in a purchase. In both thought and purchases we may invest well but just as often we may invest poorly.

When investing in cognition (thought) here is a  rule: The more cognitive energy you invest, the more you “own” the “reality” of which you are investing.

As in physics, when the atomic weight increases, matter will progress from a gas, to a liquid, and then to a solid. As a body of thoughts become increasingly “solid,” it can become very difficult to let it go–and it doesn’t make one bit of difference if it’s negative or positive thought. Such dichotomies as love & hate, and joy & sorrow can have equal power in our minds.

Once you have invested great energy into something, you will attempt to justify the value–no matter how negative or destructive it is.

I hope you can see how it’s possible to get sucked in to some pretty horrible situations, and then attempt to convince yourself (and everybody else) that it’s justifiable behavior. The more you dump your precious mental energy into a bottomless pit of a destructive relationship, the more hooked in you can get.

There’s a eBook, audio cassette, and workbook program for this difficult problem.

This concept follows the principle that we comprehend best when information is presented in threes, or a triad. This isn't some kind of numerological mumbo-jumbo--the brain is construction in such a way that this happens.

To give you a basic example:

(1) if you were going to an art store to purchase a painting for your living room wall, you would first use (usually) the right hemisphere of your brain--the imagination--to spot something that grabs your sense of aesthetics.

(2) This information is then funneled the the opposite hemisphere using a bundle of neurons called the corpus collosum. This allows the esthetic information to blend with prices and other mechanical particulars.

(3) You would then use the right side again to visualize how several choices would look on your living room wall, usually instinctively choosing three paintings for your comparison.

(4) And finally both brain hemispheres would get into the act as you made a choice by “comparing notes” between the two thought processes.

So you will have the information from one brain hemisphere, and information from the opposite hemisphere to interact forming a third perception. Decisions will typically be made either through domination by one hemisphere or the other, or by an equal combination of both.

Many of us have a tendency to favor either right, left or both when making decisions--and this is something that can be measured. In my practice I used a number of tests, the most comprehensive was called Brain Hemispherisity Evaluation.

This process is instinctively used by us all... probably hard-wired in our brain at birth. Fine-turning it, however, can bring about a impressive increase in perceptual ability.

Of course, there is much more to this process than I've described, but now you at least have a few of the basics

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Excerpt from ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The Weisbrod Digest of Seminars Problem-Solving by Formula Carl Weisbrod, Ph.D. Vol 1, Issue No. 7 ~ ~ ~ August 2001 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The Triad, in this case, refers to the three functions of thought: (1) The Left Brain (logical/language) (2) The Right Brain (imagination); and... (3) the Corpus Callosum (connection) that blends the two types of thought together. You've probably heard or read some of my allegories, which all have a triad process embedded in the story. Here's a non-allegorical example the illustrates the function of a Triad, in simple terms. One of the things you will learn as you progress through this program is some neurology--you'll be surprised how easy it is to understand neurology. Look at it like this, can you see how much easier it might be to understand the workings of the brain rather than the metabolic processes of the liver? One of the products of the brain is thought, and it's certainly easier to understand how the brain organizes and classifies, as opposed to how and why the liver converts glucose to glycogen. Let me give you a sample of a mental process that you will understand as your get into the upcoming eBooks and audio cassettes. Years ago, I did a graduate paper on the rhythm of the standup comedian's monologue. I'll bet you thought these guys just got up in front of an audience and told jokes. Maybe you've heard some comedians have extraordinary timing. Did you think that meant they tell jokes at just the right speed, or waited just the right time to start the next joke?   Nope ... there's a lot more to it than that. Let me give you an example. One of the most practiced standup comedian in the world was Johnny Carson. Here is an example of how he structured his act. Carson would purposely start out with a bland and weak joke, but the audience would offer an obligatory laugh (after all, the tickets were free). Then he would quickly tell another, a better one, and wait for the laughter to fade through about half of its cycle, he would then tell the best of the three. As the audience roared its approval, he would put called the “spin.” It could be a word or two, (continued at top of right column) >click

(Continued from left column below) an expression--anything to extend the laughter. He would then wait for the laughter to die out completely before starting that three-cycle again. If the audience was slow to quiet down, he might say something like, “but seriously folks.” He needed a clean slate, so to speak, before he could start again. Carson might run this cycle three times, and then completely break up the pattern by chatting with his band leader or producer… And then once more go back to the three pattern. Being on a roll refers to the comics favorite experience of keeping the laughter rolling without relying on the cycle of threes. It essentially meant the audience had a collective case of the giggles, and would laugh at virtually anything--a somewhat rare and treasured occurrence. The dichotomy was called the “bomb.” One test for a roll, by the way, is when the TV audience at home would be laughing as well as the studio audience Here's the shocker: It isn't the jokes that get the audience laughing! If you had the opportunity to read a transcript of a monologue you could see that for yourself. The humor is primarily caused by the rhythm of the presentation. To test part of my hypothesis, I transcribed some of Johnny Carson's monologues leaving out punch-line hints and asked some of the graduate students to mark the places they thought would be the laughter, and also guess the intensity of the laughter on a one-to-ten scale. Statistically, their guesses were not much better than chance. Competing with the standup comic, can you guess who else applies this three principle? Who do you think would need to control audience reaction by these principles? Can't you guess? Politicians! …It's the politician! Just like the standup comic must get the audience to laugh at jokes that really aren't very funny, the politician must get the audience to applaud for promises that are either too expensive to be realistic, or have failed time after time with previous bureaucratic attempts.  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ end of excerpt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I put together a program called LifeStyles of the Poor & Unknown. The title is kind of a spoof of the television series LifeStyles of the Rich & Famous.

If you look at the tabloids while at the supermarket check-out stand, you'll get the idea that even with the incredible toys they possess, the "rich & famous" aren't necessarily having such a great time!

On the other hand, I'm not talking about those living in poverty and dependent on bureaucratic assistance–welfare, food stamps, etc.

A while back, I wrote an article in which I discussed how we are no longer attached to electricity, phone, water, and sewer lines, thus opening up the possibility of purchasing and living on very inexpensive land without an infrastructure.

I was surprised by the number of folks that visualized my discussion as living in the wilderness without basic conveniences.

A couple of people even said they were not interested in "living like an animal!"   ...even though nowhere in the article did I discuss reducing one's quality of life. I talked abut the satellite systems that offer phone and Internet services, and there's solar and wind power for electricity.

I was talking about an exodus from crowding. Why do we jam ourselves together like sardines?

Probably the principle reason is for employment. Up to now it took the bulky machinery of industry and technology to provide the necessary resources to feed one's family. From the 15th through the 20th century there have been several mass movements of populations.
 
There was the migration from Europe to North America. Next was the Westward migration of the pioneers; then from farm to urban, and finally, from urban to suburban. There is little doubt in my mind that as we enter the 21st-century, and as we become liberated from wires, pipes, and employment connections, there will be another migration; this time away from the dense population centers that are expensive and increasingly crime-ridden.

A scant fifty years ago, the population was half what it is today, and only half of that number needed to be employed. For this reason, automobiles and highway systems were comfortable and fast.

One could zip to work ten miles from town in less time taken to walk a couple of blocks--parking was free and gas was 35¢ a gallon. When folks discovered they could escape from the crowded urban centers to the suburbs they did so by the millions.

We are at another crossroads, but few realize it because the last piece of the puzzle is only a few years old–the connection with the Internet. And it can be tapped into with a used $100 computer and a modest monthly fee.

With sprawling and expensive tract housing, freeway gridlock, rising crime rates, and now, terrorist attacks, it seems to me the old system has pretty much run its course.

So I predict in the next few years there will be another exodus, similar to urban-to-suburban--but this time it will be from urban/suburban to the woodlands.
 
The supportive technology exists. Because of the lightning pace at the beginning of this 21st-century, those in front of the pack will probably do very well.

---

Reproduced with editing from a 1997 article of the E-Commerce edition of the WDS E-Zine, Vol. 1, No.8
Refer to the eBook, Audio Cassette, and workbook program, LifeStyles of the Poor & Unknown

There's an easy answer to that question: The transition from poor physical condition to good physical condition is painful! And we all have a couple basic motivational goals: to avoid pain and to pursue pleasure. So it's certainly desirable to avoid the pain of exercise by substituting pleasurable activities such as watching television or surfing the Internet.

Each time a decision is made that brings pleasure, rather than one that is initially painful, a behavior pattern is fortified.

Still, to get in great shape is a wonderful experience. Everything in life is better when our physical condition is at its peak.

As in so many things, there is misinformation (often reaching mythical proportions) that inhibit the establishment of an effective exercise program. Here is the short list of myths.

A myth: A twenty minute walk three times a week is all we need to stay in shape. (Grossly inadequate, but better than nothing.)

A myth: The best exercise is walking. (If you're in shape, running is three times better.)

A myth: Most of us know enough about exercise, motivation is the problem. (This is simply not true.)

A myth: Vigorous exercise is for the young. As we grow older we need to take it easy. (Probably the reverse is true, although it's important that older folks take extra care to avoid injury.)

A myth: The major danger of exercise is over-doing it. (Most folks under-do it.)

A myth: Your physician is the best source of information about exercise. (Well maybe, but probably not.)

A myth:.From the standpoint of exercise physiology, the scientific community needs to do more research to support adequate recommendations. (The research has been in for years.)

A myth: Osteoporosis is caused by a calcium deficiency. (The highest rates of osteoporosis are found in populations with the highest consumption of calcium-rich dairy products. Osteoporosis is not a calcium pill or milk deficiency. It's caused by calcium-leaching protein (when consumed in excess) and a lack of impact exercise.

To understand how exercise works we first need to consider that primates we are not fast runners, and certainly not equipped with the carnivore fang, claw and digestive system. The hominid survivability was a result of an arms-free, bipedal gate and incredible long distance ability that kept us out of range from the large carnivore predators. Our so-called canine teeth are designed for stripping course covers from fruits. The hominid needed to do what would now be considered Marathon training just to get enough food for the day.

On a cellular level, the conditioning is not so much in muscle tone or muscle mass but in the number of mitochondria in each cell. The action that burns fat and allows fatigue-free long-distance travel is found in a process called The Krebs Cycle.

The process of "waking up" The Krebs Cycle and adding mitochondria is slow and arduous, but must be done before exercise becomes pleasurable. If you don't think this is an option for you, consider that many out-of-shape senior citizens have trained for and completed a 26-mile marathon.

The sedentary person who goes on a low-calory diet puts him or herself in the same desperate situation (biologically speaking) as a Stone-Age person who was injured at the beginning of a famine. Whether it's 2003 or a million years ago, the body's metabolism reacts automatically.

I've only touched on a couple of points. My programs are made up of many hours of cassette recordings, coupled with workbooks, and more recently, eBooks to keep everything up-to-date.

---

References:
The Weight Control Program: (6) audio cassettes and a workbook. WDS 1998
Problem Solving by Formula: An eBook by Carl Weisbrod, WDS 2001

Mary Young wanted to quit smoking, and decided to get some help from a therapist who offered hypnosis. At Mary's session, the hypnotist talked to her about smoking for awhile and then asked her to sit comfortably in a chair. It was then suggested that she relax her muscles one by one, and Mary felt herself unwinding into a very relaxed state.

"This is pleasant!" she thought.

But then Mary was told that she was hypnotized, and that she would accept suggestions about her non-smoking status.

"Is hypnosis just being relaxed?" Mary wondered.

As the process continued, Mary started to worry that she was not deep enough for the suggestions to be "hypnotic." She worried throughout the session that maybe she wasn't hypnotized at all, or at least not deep enough for the suggestions to work. She felt completely conscious and thought, "If I wanted to, I could open my eyes...I've heard every word he said...I think I could stand up and just walk away...I must be hard to hypnotize."

And all through the process, as Mary was having these thoughts, the hypnotist droned on, completing the session by telling her that she would wake up at the count of five. Mary opened her eyes and the first thing on her mind was to express her concern that she was not hypnotized. The hypnotist assured her that she had done just fine and, in fact, was quite a good subject. He went on to explain that her eyelids were fluttering, and pointed out that what seemed like 10 minutes was actually more like 20 minutes. Mary was informed that these are sure signs that she was hypnotized.

Nevertheless, Mary left her appointment feeling disappointed and with a different concept of hypnosis than when she walked in. "Maybe hypnosis" she thought "is nothing more than being relaxed...or maybe I wasn't really hypnotized. The hypnotist insisted I did okay, but maybe he just didn't want me to know the truth about my poor ability to be hypnotized."

So Mary talked about trying hypnosis to quit smoking, and about how she didn't think it worked. "The hypnotist said I was hypnotized," she told her friends "but I don't think I went very deep."
In this all-to-common scenario, I hope you can see that Mary was not hypnotized. If she actually quit smoking, she did so in spite of the hypnosis procedure, rather than because of it. The lasting impressions of the hypnosis experience for Mary were the negative doubts about her ability to be hypnotized.

I believe, as most hypnotists do, that there is always some level of suggestion that takes root in the right-brain hemisphere. Unfortunately, in cases like Mary's, a pessimistic attitude will erode positive post-hypnotic suggestions. It is just plain wishful thinking when a hypnotist declares that hypnosis plants a suggestion so deep into the subconscious that it cannot be over-ruled by conscious and contradictory thoughts. For the most part, the only way pessimistic and contradictory thoughts will not affect a hypnotic outcome is when these thoughts do not exist. It's part of a hypnotist's skill to see that these thoughts don't intrude during the procedure.

Hypnotic suggestion can be classed as "post hypnotic" only after some level of amnesia is achieved–certainly a more profound level than the simple time-distortion that Mary had experienced. Beyond that, "subconscious" is too vague a term to have real descriptive value. It is certainly not a valid term in the lexicon of neurology. In truth, when someone is truly hypnotized, they could never be having constant thoughts that they were not experiencing hypnosis.

I should point out that even the deepest subjects have questioning thoughts after awaking. But this is because they have lost most of the recall of the hypnotic process in exactly the same way patients coming out of anesthesia are often surprised that the surgery is over. When hypnosis is used for anesthesia, and the patient would say "I don't think I'm hypnotized yet" ...but the surgeon started the incision anyway, everybody would know in a hurry whose assumption was correct!

Hypnosis is a phenomenon that is certainly more profound that just sitting relaxed in a chair. Hypnotism was developed over a century ago by surgeons who used it as an analgesic and anesthetic. It would be pointless to try to talk a patients into the fact that they were hypnotized during an amputation or difficult delivery. The surgeon-hypnotists of those times were undoubtedly more skilled than we are today. I'm sure they made few assumptions–they must have been fantastic at evaluating the levels of hypnosis.

Even stage hypnotists must learn to quickly anticipate the levels of the hypnosis they achieve. I suspect many clinical therapists couldn't even duplicate the feats of the stage hypnotist, and would certainly be insecure in an operating room.

But, here's the problem: When a patient leaves the hypnotist's office with a "Mary experience," there will be a diluting effect throughout the entire field.

At the time I first began my practice, less than half the population believed that hypnosis even existed. Now, most of the population view hypnosis as a useful therapeutic method, but I suspect, more as a kind of chicken soup therapy. Personally, I much prefer the old skepticism.

At a time when we have developed many fascinating and powerful methods, such as the Ericksonian systems and imagery techniques, it seems a shame that therapists have lost many of the original testing and evaluating methods developed by 19-century physicians such as Braid, Esdale, Elliotson, Liebault, and Bernheim.

Of course, not every patient can reach a level of hypnosis that can be identified subjectively. Nonetheless, I feel many therapists no longer possess the skills of centuries past, thus depriving many of a more profound experience–even with the benefit of our 21st-century technological savvy.

Perhaps it's this very technology that has driven a wedge between technique and the art of observation.

C. Weisbrod 1988

You have a common misconception if you think of stress as a bad thing. Furthermore, stress is not something that relates only to humans. Concrete and steel is stressed for increased strength. In almost the same way, humans need stress for strength.

You will understand an important principle of stress if you take a moment to consider this simple experiment: Let a sheet of paper hang limp. The paper, when not stressed, has little strength. Now bow the paper into a trough. Notice changing the paper from its resting position increases the strength dramatically.

Stress simply means to force something out of its resting position. At first it becomes stronger, but if you force it too far, it will become weaker. If the stress continues to increase, it will break. Stress management means to maintain an appropriate level of stress; enough for strength, but not so much to aggravate a burnout reaction. A stressor is anything, good or bad, that forces change.

If you think you have excess stress–more accurately, too many stressors–then make a list of the things that seem to control you life negatively. Then start to resolve the ones that seem to least important. Deal with simple things, such as organizing your desk, writing an overdue letter to a friend, or getting your car serviced. As you reduce some of your stress by cleaning up loose ends, the larger issues will become easier to handle.

If you think you might be near burnout, I suggest the following: find a therapist who can administer a Stress Index Evaluation. This is important because treatments will vary depending on the severity of the stress levels. However, keep in mind that the treatment for excess stress, even burnout, is usually quite simple, with appropriate treatment, some relief should come right away.

Warning: Avoid using alcohol or drugs for relief, including prescription drugs. Using a chemical solution is inviting dependency and addiction. Another Warning: Stress problems, if untreated will eventually become chronic. chronic problems become difficult to cure, so nip-it-in-the-bud. The most disheartening example of this is the post-traumatic stress disorder experienced by veterans of the Vietnam War. One important rule of stress is that once it is excessively high for extended times, it never again returns to low-normal levels. This is another reason for the post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD).Stress is more a principle of physics than of psychology.

---

This was borrowed from my book: The Weisbrod Method–A Problem-Solving Workbook.
© 1987 by  C. Weisbrod. Current reference: Stress Measurement & Management, a program including two audio tapes and a workbook, by the same author.

Once upon a time there was a nice lady I'll call Jane, and a bully I'll call Brutkis.

Jane was a regular lady with a regular job. She lived alone, paid her taxes, and was well liked.

Brutkis was the typical bully. He was abusive to his wife and children, and loved to gain control over anyone he could with one purpose in mind: to make their life miserable. He was mean and vindictive with few redeeming qualities.

Nevertheless, Brutkis had quite a few beer-drinking buddies that greatly admired his apparent invincibility. A few of his friends were also bullies, but most were weak and timid men that lived vicariously through--from their view--a powerful "man's man."

Brutkis also had a few women friends that found his behavior as sexy. Brutkis exploited some of these women for sex.

Brutkis and Jane worked for the same company, and after rejecting his sexual advances, she became a target for his bullying tactics. Jane did her best to ignore his insulting comments and tasteless pranks.

When she could stand it no longer, she complained to the management. Jane was an excellent worker, and Brutkis was not, so rather than take a chance of losing her, Brutkis was fired.

Jane's complaint wasn't the first, and Brutkis had a terrible work record. He was nevertheless convinced it was entirely Jane's doing that got him fired–and he was enraged.
 
His friends chortled and discussed what a stupid lady Jane was–going against Brutkis. They laughed saying Jane is"dead-meat." Brutkis felt he had to vindicate himself by making Jane's life a living hell. So he went to work.

Brutkis, with the help of his buddies, starting making untraceable obscene phone calls to Jane. They threw eggs at her house, and flat tires and scratched paint started showing up on her car. On one occasion, someone attempted to run down her much-loved pet, an aging Cocker Spaniel. Brutkis would regularly drive by her house stopping to glare menacing in her direction. Terrible rumors were circulated.

Jane's appeals to "please stop" seemed only to escalate Brutkis' painful antics.

Finally, Jane called the police to file a complaint. The officer that came to her house to fill out the police report, laughed when he heard it was Brutkis, saying, "Just ignore him, ma'am, ol' Brutkis's bark is worse than his bite. In time he'll grow tired of the game." The officer obviously knew Brutkis. The police office smiled broadly as he informed her that to arrest Brutkis there must be property damage with a witness, or physical injury. And there wasn't enough evidence to file a Restraining Order.

After the police report, the attacks became more intensive, but always within the law, or done in such a way that no connection could be made to Brutkis. He was very good at these tactics.

Jane consulted an attorney, and found to file a harassment suit would cost a fortune with no assurance she would win. And even if she won there could be no assurance that it would make Brutkis stop.

The attorney suggest the best solution would be to move far enough away that her tormentor could no longer bother her. Jane could hardly believe that this bully had the power to force her to leave her home and friends.

She tried bureaucratic organizations, such as the ACLU, and found no help (but ended up on a number of lists soliciting donations for their "good" works).

Gradually, Jane realized that this type of harassment was not considered a social wrong worthy of intervention. In desperation she ordered a program called Turn Abusers Into Victims. She read the eBook, listened to the audio cassettes, and thumbed through the WorkBook. She was skeptical as it was so different from anything she had ever seen.

It showed her in great detail how to establish a file on Brutkis and build it until she would know more about him than he knew about himself. The best defense, she was told, is a powerful offense.

It surprised her to hear that attempting to turn the bully's tactics against him was a bad idea. She was also warned to never do anything that could even remotely be considered illegal.

But what surprised her the most was the admonition to never attempt to use this technique as a way to threaten the abuser.

"What good is it then?" Jane thought.

As she got phone calls she was certain originated from Brutkis, it was so tempting to tell the caller of the powerful technique she was putting into place. Fortunately Jane was very intelligent and knew there must be a good reason for the instructions.

Even though the police seem to think of him as a harmless prankster, a huge amount of unsavory behavior started to unfold in her "Brutkis file."  ...much more than just pranks.

He had a number of police reports filed against him, primarily by ex-wives and girlfriends, and his military record was far from pristine. He also had terrible credit, and several of the uncollected debts carried a judgment.

In time, she gained access to his tax forms and government applications. She saw he had lied on these forms, perhaps constituting a federal offense.

As the file became thicker and thicker, she started to understand the author's warnings to not use this information for intimidation or retribution. Individual pieces of information were no big deal, but taken as a whole it was far to potent to be handled in a frivolous manner. The possessor of such information could be accused of coercion, extortion, or even blackmail.

Brutkis somehow got wind that someone was investigating him, and suspected it was Jane. He immediately confronted her on the telephone–whining that she was violating his rights of privacy.

It took the ultimate restraint to follow instructions and say only that computers were a hobby and she enjoyed "looking people up" on the Internet. Jane's calm demeanor enraged Brutkis and he shrilled that if she continued to "stick her nose in his business," he would have her "thrown in jail."

Jane, according to instructions, said that she would certainly take this into account and understood that he wanted her to stop "looking him up." She, however, didn't admit one way or the other what she was doing, or her plans for the future. She didn't even request that Brutkis stop his bullying behavior against her.

Brutkis had suddenly become like a cornered rat, and his type can be dangerous under these circumstances. Jane had been instructed to memorized one sentence as "Protection Insurance." In an offhand way she mentioned that she was writing a book, and copies of all her files were in the hands of a publisher.

This was just in case Brutkis might consider committing an assault or robbery to obtain any information against him.

The abusive activities stopped abruptly.
 
Jane didn't stop, however. She found the names of some of Brutkis' buddies and started a file on each one. In time the word leaked out, and Brutkis found his buddies were losing respect as he complained about Jane's "unfair" investigations. They also began to fidget over the investigations they worried were going on about them, and for this they were angry at Brutkis.

Nobody likes to be investigated, and more than most, this group had a lot to hide.

Before long it was obvious that Jane, not Brutkis, was the one with the power, and yet she had made not one threat and only responded when Brutkis contacted her. On the phone she was businesslike, even slightly sympathetic–while volunteering nothing beyond the "protection insurance" remark.

For this reason, Brutkis and his buddies had no idea the extent of the information she had accumulated–fearing the worst. They worried constantly about her intentions. The fact that she made no contact with them, or expressed no threats, made their fears all the more intense.

"The monster in full view is a worrisome sight, but something you know is there but can't see is far more terrifying."

You can write you own ending to this story... The important point is not that Jane had turned one abuser into a victim, but rather, with this new-found power, she never again needed to fear a bully.
Reference: Turn Abusers Into Victims! An eBook, audio cassette, and workbook program.

In general, charisma is a term applied to someone who is noticeably more attractive to a greater cross-section of people than would be considered typical.

Have you ever noticed a rapid onset of charm from a politician over a comparatively short period of time? Would you like to know how candidates quickly progress from obnoxious to presidential? During every major election, I'm always interested in the latest methods the candidates choose for an infusion of charisma. These folks can afford the very best, and since your taxes pay for it, I'm sure you're interested in how these rapid transformations take place.

In my e-zines, I offer a list of a couple of dozen articles on various topics, focusing on health topics. Of all the choices, the one on charisma is by far the most popular, and that's why it's included in this survey eBook. So lets get started.

Do this...

Let your mind drift back through time and space:  Go to an actual moment that a casual acquaintance made a simple comment you liked so much that it remains a vivid memory. It's surprising that a comment that faded from the speaker's mind with the echo of the very words, would be something you would remember forever.
Then guess the times your words have had such an impact on others. A lot? Occasionally? Seldom? In any case, we're talking about the essence of Charisma & Power.

As a behavioral scientist, I class charisma as a trait rather than a human quality–and obviously not bestowed only on the worthy. Musical talent is a trait and offers a good comparison.

A quality is something inherently human, which allowed survival in an environment that ancient hominid were faced with millions of years ago. The most obvious quality is our large problem-solving cerebral cortex. Another human quality is the dexterity of our unique opposing thumb and forefinger. A third quality is our bipedal, arms-free, long-distance endurance ability.

Traits, on the other hand, are things like musical talent, intellectual ability, and charisma. 

In the extreme, charismatic people can seem almost irresistible.  Charismatic people might be referred to as charming, alluring, fascinating, glamorous, and magnetic. Of course, you can look at some charismatic folks (such as comedian Don Rickels, king of the insult) who seem irresistible to millions of fans, and yet possess few of the usual charismatic traits.

Many of the talk show hosts, of both radio and TV, have abrasive personalities, and yet seem to be irresistible to the large following they attract. So from that, we know that charismatic sub-traits are certainly not chiseled-in-stone.

Used properly, charisma is one of the most powerful traits one can possess. On the other hand, like most things of value, it carries with it a price. Consider, for example, the loss of privacy experienced by charismatic movie stars.

One of the basics for the formula is the charismatic attachment either won or lost is the first few seconds of an individual interaction with another. With groups, it's longer–perhaps developing in minutes during (for example) a speech. To become more charismatic, one must learn ways to adjust a mind set in the first couple of minutes of an initial conversation. If you lose that charismatic link in a first conversation, it's very difficult to get back.

Are you wondering if I'm charismatic? Most often, charismatic people really enjoy groups of people and I'm a bit reclusive. I tend to be obsessed with work, and I don't like a lot of people getting too close. I really, however, love people as individuals.

Even though I'm not that charismatic, you still might want to listen to me when it comes to learning about charisma and power. A big part of my life work involved hypnotizing people, both in groups and individually. I was fascinated with the process. Every person I hypnotized was a learning experience and over the years, I developed a habit of mentally debriefing after every session. I did my best to continually improve my technique over a period of some 30 years (I'm now in the teaching stage of my life).

One of the things every hypnotist gets to experience is something called Natural Rapport. This is an observable state especially with subjects who experience a profound hypnotic state referred to as somnambulism. It's characterized by a wide-eyed, warm, unblinking stare fastened on the hypnotist.

However, before you rush out and buy a "How To Hypnotize" book, let me tell you the difference between this hypnosis rapport and that from ones child or a lover:

First, it's not sexual. Second, it's very temporary, and third, it's conditional. Let me expand a bit on these three things:

Number one, it happens between a hypnotist and subject without regard to whether it's child to adult, man to women, women to man, man to man, or women to women. The gender of the hypnotist and subject is not relevant.

Number two, it lasts only a few minutes from the time a hypnosis session is terminated and is related only to the process that went on during the induction--and nothing more.

Number three: again it's based on the process of the induction. If the hypnotist tries to capitalize on this rapport state (for example, a seduction) the warmth could instantly change to hostility or fear.

The major feature of Natural Rapport is its state of profound trust based on the hypnosis process right after it happens. But again, if that trust is violated in any way, rapport turns to hostility or fear.

With experienced hypnotists, it's seldom violated. Even the stage hypnotist, who appears to make fools out of his or her subjects, learns how to function within the tacit approval of the volunteers. To make the show more entertaining, stage hypnotists have techniques to accomplish this in a way that is hidden from the audience.

So a hypnotist possesses (without a doubt) profound charisma, but only during the time the hypnotizing process is happening.

Many hypnotists are like me; they don't want to extend this trait into their day-to-day personality, and in fact feel uncomfortable with it. For this reason, narcissism is not a trait that the best hypnotists possess. Years back, a hypnotist's convention was a low-key affair–I understand that's starting to change, which may be unfortunate.
So before you can even think of becoming a hypnotist, you certainly must understand some of the mechanics of human behavior–and the same is true for charisma.

To give you some idea of some of these mechanics, here's a table of contents from an eBook and a couple of audio cassettes:

Charisma & Power