[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by seeker5

Bruce, you bring up a really good point, that I am actually trying to mesh two different tool models together. One model being the lightworker-darkworker model, and the other model being the Strength Finders model of working from your strengths.

One model - lightworker seems suggest that you do not see life as competition, while the other model, strength finders says that you work from your top strengths, and competition is one of my top talents.

[...]

That's a great point. Hmmmm. When I get competitive, I do it for the love of the competition. I don't want to hurt the other, I don't want the other to be badly off, I do it for the thrill and love of the challenge, and doing something that drives me. I don't do it out of fear - fear that the other person will take something from me. Actually, competition for fear leads me to be completely de-motivated and blocked. Hmmmm. But competition for fun, for thrill, oh yeah

Concerning some of the other comments on here, not sure if you've read some of my follow up posts, but basically, I'm not seeking to feel good or justify anything. I am comfortable being competitive. What I'm curious is maximum effectiveness as a lightworker.

If it's maximum effectiveness that you want as a lightworker, you'll get it from your talents and strengths.

I suspect what you're really looking for is perhaps something else, or at least, you didn't define it clearly in your writing but you intuitively know what you mean.

But in general, yeah, you get it.

I still think you might not get lightworking as much as you could, though, since your previous definition seemed very influenced by the specifics of what Steve wrote about lightworking, instead of the essence he points to.

I find this is the simplest, most real-life-applicable definition of lightworking:

Aligning with love as often as you can and as much as possible.

That basically means that lightworking is really a lack of alignment with fear. For example, if you, say, think that "oh, I don't want to be competitive because X might happen" or "oh, I don't know how to be competitive", there's a good chance that is coming from you fearing something, which means you're aligned with fear, not love.

If you look at polarised people, you see that there is a self-confidence in them that is pretty unmatched. The reason? They choose to align with love.

Steve's book will cover this pretty well, since the basic process, as I see it, is about first being truthful with yourself and your situation--truth squashes fear, since it bring awareness into the equation and you become present as the "observer", instead of identifying with the fear or other emotion involved. Power is about following up on that truth, and love--more connection and alignment--is the result.

Now, as your authority on all things talent and strength and helpful strengths-based mentor, I'm going to pull you up on something to help you come to an even clearer understanding.

You said:

strength finders says that you work from your top trengths

You are right conceptually, but you're using the wrong terms (just trust me when I say that strengths-theory has a morass of terms, and understanding them is crucial if you want to work with them. The strengths-based authors are, for the most part, terribly unclear. At least Tom Rath, author of StrengthsFinder 2.0, is pretty clear).

Basically "StrengthsFinder" is the tool developed by Gallup to help you find the areas where you have the most potential to develop strengths. StrengthsFinder was created because those at Gallup wanted to start "a global conversation about what was right about people" (source: StrengthsFinder 2.0) because nearly everyone focuses on what isn't right with people (and those who would disagree with that would be surprised if I went into the way people actually focus on what is "wrong" instead of strength and what is there and what is right).

It's "strengths-theory" that says that you should become aware of your talents--where you have the most potential to create a strength--and then focus on putting those strengths to use.

A semantic difference, but still important. (People will argue that, but those people don't have individualisation as a talent theme, I bet. )

* * *

To go into even more detail...

StrengthsFinder was called StrengthsFinder, instead of "TalentFinder" because, to quote page 17 of StrengthsFinder 2.0:

StrengthsFinder actually measures [...] talent, not strengths. [...] we named it "StrengthsFinder" instead of "TalentFinder" because the ultimate goal is to build a true strength, and talent is just one of the ingredients in this formula.

A "strength", in Gallup language (not Marcus Buckingham language; he has 2 definitions), is a talent--an instinctual draw towards a certain pattern of feeling, thought, and behaviour that you probably engage in without even knowing it--combined with knowledge and skill (both of which are learnable, unlike talent) that results in consistent, near perfect performance in a certain activity.

To repeat that so it's more clear:

A "strength" is a talent combined with knowledge and skill that results in consistent, near perfect performance in a certain activity.

To say it another way:

What is a strength?
A strength is the ability to consistently provide near-perfect performance in a specific activity. The key to building a strength is to identify your dominant talents, then complement them by acquiring knowledge and skills pertinent to the activity.

(Buckingham defines a strength as both the above, as well as "an activity that makes you feel strong." The above would also do that, but you have to be aware who is using what definition, which you can usually do when you take into account who is talking or who wrote what your reading. Buckingham is great, but he tends to be a bit vague at clarifying his terms and opts to be more wordy. He does this because it's good for leadership, I believe. In terms of writing, it's not ideal.)