What experiences have you had defending your views regarding 9/11?

[Third_Density_Resident]

I bring up this topic because just the other day I was talking with a family friend about an incident which occurred in a nearby city in which someone either fell or jumped out of a very high building, and her colleague saw it happen outside his office window. Then we started to talk about the act of jumping, and what would have to be going through someone's mind to do that. I then said how appalling it must have been for those poor people on the top of the Twin Towers who felt driven to jump rather than be engulfed in flames.

And then the friend said, "What do you think of all those stupid people who believe that the Trade Towers collapsed because of a government conspiracy?"

She really expected me to say something like, "I know, aren't they stupid!" But she got a real shock when I smiled and said, "I believe in that conspiracy." She then shook her head and said, "No, I don't believe that," then she cited a documentary she saw on television. It was the BBC debunking one (surprise, surprise). I then said, "Well after having researched the topic on and off for 5 years, I think I'm probably in a better position to draw conclusions than you are."

Anyway, I then proceeded to tell her why I believe in that conspiracy, and went through many different points. There were a couple of points I forgot to mention which were pretty damning, but I have always thought to myself in the past that if ever I had to defend my views I would find it hard to recall the right things to say at the right time.

I believe that my views not only shocked her, but definitely left her with food for thought because she didn't say much after that. Even if she still doesn't seriously question her own views on the matter, she now knows that there are at least some reasonably intelligent people out there who believe in such things (she has praised the digital video and animation work I've done for her over the years).

Now, I'd like some advice on how I could have BETTER handled the situation. I know I probably sounded quite arrogant saying "Well after having researched the topic on and off for 5 years, I think I'm probably in a better position to draw conclusions than you are", but isn't that the truth? (Not that the truth is necessarily an excuse to be arrogant.) I was also thinking of how external consideration could have used in this situation.

 

[Wizard]

[ ]

Now, I'd like some advice on how I could have BETTER handled the situation. I know I probably sounded quite arrogant saying "Well after having researched the topic on and off for 5 years, I think I'm probably in a better position to draw conclusions than you are", but isn't that the truth? (Not that the truth is necessarily an excuse to be arrogant.) I was also thinking of how external consideration could have used in this situation.

This has always been a problem for me as well. I spent a number of years trying to tell people about what really happened on 911; people who had absolutely no interest in the truth, preferring to revert to racial stereotypes and the official conspiracy theory of Osama & Friends. At the time I was living in Singapore where the Chinese majority were more than happy to denigrate the muslim Malays, and traveling to Malaysia and Indonesia where the Chinese minority making up the financial elite exhibited the same tendencies. The idea that Muslims "did 911" suited the existing racial prejudices. In such an environment it was wholly inappropriate to challenge the official conspiracy theory on the basis of simple external consideration.

As a result, when in contact with westerners and with muslim Malay and Indonesian friends I found myself almost proselytising the Alternative Conspiracy (Bush & Co & Israel being the perpetrators) without regard for them at all - pure internal considering. Many people were kind enough to humour me while I alienated others, just a few responded well.

With a bit more experience I have adjusted my approach and have taken a position very similar to yours but with some slight differences. At the point where your friend cited the BBC debunking documentary I often ask how interested the person is in really knowing what happened. The answer to that enquiry then allows me to gauge whether they are genuinely interested or just repeating convenient and self-calming mantras. If the response is one that that suggests some level of genuine interest my next question is "Would you like to me to tell you why I don't believe in the government's version of events?". Again the reply allows me to gauge the persons interest. If they reply that they are actually interested I start out with a comment much the same as the first part of yours "OK, now I've devoted at least a 1,000 hours researching this and while what I am about to tell you may seem fantastic to you, it is based on real evidence and real work and puts pretty much everything you've seen on TV and in the newspapers into a very different perspective".

I find that this generates either a genuine further interest in hearing more or an insult. My response to an insult is to say "OK, so we disagree, now, about the weather....". Genuine interest usually results in being able to drop a few choice pieces of data and 'cui bono' without drowning the person in words.

Many people then suggest having lunch or a coffee to hear more or ask if there's a book (of course there is - 911 The Ultimate Truth). Even then it always plays out better when I continually try to asses the person's genuine level of interest through the conversation - some people don't care about the mass of detail and are more concerned with the usual stuff about conspiracies never being secret etc - it really pays to listen to what concerns them and in particular their fears and desire to believe the official version. Remember that for people who believe the official version, in discussing the alternative you are asking them to do something they have never done - care about the truth - and somewhere inside them they know where that road leads

Just last week I met up with a long time friend who 4 years ago called me a bunch of names and didn't talk to me for a year because he challenged my views at a dinner and wouldn't drop the issue however much I suggested it. At the time I used the "I've done 1,000 hours of research etc" but that simply didn't cut the ice and the synopsis I gave him of 911 upset him greatly. We started talking and over the last three years he has kept prodding for more and more of my views. Given the previous experience I told him that I am reticent as he is a good friend and I don't want to fall out over differences of perspective so it's probably better that he read sott.net. Anyway, last week he apologised and said that he saw how right I had been about 911 and the resulting police state and while he still had troubles with sott.net he did acknowledge that the site had proved him wrong so many times he had to give credit where it was due.

So it seems to me that we may not do things perfectly when dealing with people who hold different views but if we adjust as we go along then the Universe will work its wonders.

 

[Mountain Crown]

When a window of opportunity opens, it's best to present the facts as impersonally as possible, never forgetting that everyone's opinions and sacred cows are the primary blockades to "hearing" the facts.

External consideration involves understanding someone as objectively as you can, while not being concerned about how you are being perceived. Defending implies attacking, and vice versa.

Though the subject of 911 is emotional, the facts must be presented as an appeal to reason.

 

[bedower]

From the oppisite end, via the New York Times:

CAIRO — Seven years later, it remains conventional wisdom here that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda could not have been solely responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that the United States and Israel had to have been involved in their planning, if not their execution, too.

Many in Cairo see the attacks as part of an anti-Muslim plot.
This is not the conclusion of a scientific survey, but it is what routinely comes up in conversations around the region — in a shopping mall in Dubai, in a park in Algiers, in a cafe in Riyadh and all over Cairo.

“Look, I don’t believe what your governments and press say. It just can’t be true,” said Ahmed Issab, 26, a Syrian engineer who lives and works in the United Arab Emirates. “Why would they tell the truth? I think the U.S. organized this so that they had an excuse to invade Iraq for the oil.”

It is easy for Americans to dismiss such thinking as bizarre. But that would miss a point that people in this part of the world think Western leaders, especially in Washington, need to understand: That such ideas persist represents the first failure in the fight against terrorism — the inability to convince people here that the United States is, indeed, waging a campaign against terrorism, not a crusade against Muslims.

“The United States should be concerned because in order to tell people that there is a real evil, they too have to believe it in order to help you,” said Mushairy al-Thaidy, a columnist in the Saudi-owned regional newspaper Asharq al Awsat. “Otherwise, it will diminish your ability to fight terrorism. It is not the kind of battle you can fight on your own; it is a collective battle.”

There were many reasons people here said they believed that the attacks of 9/11 were part of a conspiracy against Muslims. Some had nothing to do with Western actions, and some had everything to do with Western policies.

Again and again, people said they simply did not believe that a group of Arabs — like themselves — could possibly have waged such a successful operation against a superpower like the United States. But they also said that Washington’s post-9/11 foreign policy proved that the United States and Israel were behind the attacks, especially with the invasion of Iraq.

“Maybe people who executed the operation were Arabs, but the brains? No way,” said Mohammed Ibrahim, 36, a clothing-store owner in the Bulaq neighborhood of Cairo. “It was organized by other people, the United States or the Israelis.”

The rumors that spread shortly after 9/11 have been passed on so often that people no longer know where or when they first heard them. At this point, they have heard them so often, even on television, that they think they must be true.

First among these is that Jews did not go to work at the World Trade Center on that day. Asked how Jews might have been notified to stay home, or how they kept it a secret from co-workers, people here wave off the questions because they clash with their bedrock conviction that Jews are behind many of their troubles and that Western Jews will go to any length to protect Israel.

“Why is it that on 9/11, the Jews didn’t go to work in the building,” said Ahmed Saied, 25, who works in Cairo as a driver for a lawyer. “Everybody knows this. I saw it on TV, and a lot of people talk about this.”

Zein al-Abdin, 42, an electrician, who was drinking tea and chain-smoking cheap Cleopatra cigarettes in Al Shahat, a cafe in Bulaq, grew more and more animated as he laid out his thinking about what happened on Sept. 11.

“What matters is we think it was an attack against Arabs,” he said of the passenger planes crashing into American targets. “Why is it that they never caught him, bin Laden? How can they not know where he is when they know everything? They don’t catch him because he hasn’t done it. What happened in Iraq confirms that it has nothing to do with bin Laden or Qaeda. They went against Arabs and against Islam to serve Israel, that’s why.”

There is a reason so many people here talk with casual certainty — and no embarrassment — about the United States attacking itself to have a reason to go after Arabs and help Israel. It is a reflection of how they view government leaders, not just in Washington, but here in Egypt and throughout the Middle East. They do not believe them. The state-owned media are also distrusted. Therefore, they think that if the government is insisting that bin Laden was behind it, he must not have been.

“Mubarak says whatever the Americans want him to say, and he’s lying for them, of course,” Mr. Ibrahim said of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s president.

Americans might better understand the region, experts here said, if they simply listen to what people are saying — and try to understand why — rather than taking offense. The broad view here is that even before Sept. 11, the United States was not a fair broker in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that it then capitalized on the attacks to buttress Israel and undermine the Muslim Arab world.

The single greatest proof, in most people’s eyes, was the invasion of Iraq. Trying to convince people here that it was not a quest for oil or a war on Muslims is like convincing many Americans that it was, and that the 9/11 attacks were the first step.

“It is the result of widespread mistrust, and the belief among Arabs and Muslims that the United States has a prejudice against them,” said Wahid Abdel Meguid, deputy director of the government-financed Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, the nation’s premier research center. “So they never think the United States is well intentioned, and they always feel that whatever it does has something behind it.”

Hisham Abbas, 22, studies tourism at Cairo University and hopes one day to work with foreigners for a living. But he does not give it a second thought when asked about Sept. 11. He said it made no sense at all that Mr. bin Laden could have carried out such an attack from Afghanistan. And like everyone else interviewed, he saw the events of the last seven years as proof positive that it was all a United States plan to go after Muslims.

“There are Arabs who hate America, a lot of them, but this is too much,” Mr. Abbas said as he fidgeted with his cellphone. “And look at what happened after this — the Americans invaded two Muslim countries. They used 9/11 as an excuse and went to Iraq. They killed Saddam, tortured people. How can you trust them?”

Nadim Audi contributed reporting.

Far from having a 'negative' reaction, people are telling me that 9/11 was an 'inside job'. So far, I haven't met anyone here who thinks otherwise.

 

[Gimpy]

When a window of opportunity opens, it's best to present the facts as impersonally as possible, never forgetting that everyone's opinions and sacred cows are the primary blockades to "hearing" the facts.

External consideration involves understanding someone as objectively as you can, while not being concerned about how you are being perceived. Defending implies attacking, and vice versa.

Though the subject of 911 is emotional, the facts must be presented as an appeal to reason.

I've found this works some of the time. Most of the people I used to work with were so entrenched in their thinking, 9/11 was one of many subjects I just didn't offer a voice on. All of my bosses were life long Republicans. The firm was small. I made it a point not to discuss politics or emotionally laden events at work, reserving those discussions for home with people who knew me.

I've learned that when I do present ideas that may hit onto sacred cow thinking, sticking to facts is better than trying to figure out how to say it in my own words. Some people though, are so invested in these sacred cows, that I don't even broach the subject, even when invited....because its apparent the person is looking for someone to attack, and isn't interested in knowing anything of substance.

External consideration appears to me to be an art in this way.....it takes me a lot of thinking time to figure out. ;)

 

[Pierre]

She really expected me to say something like, "I know, aren't they stupid!" But she got a real shock when I smiled and said, "I believe in that conspiracy." She then shook her head and said, "No, I don't believe that," then she cited a documentary she saw on television. It was the BBC debunking one (surprise, surprise). I then said, "Well after having researched the topic on and off for 5 years, I think I'm probably in a better position to draw conclusions than you are."

That was quite a direct approach, wasn't it ?

Maybe a first step is to test the one you are talking to in order to know what you can say, what he might be able to hear.

A second step is to disclose information progressively and in a compartmentalized way. Progressively because one might be able to hear that we are slaves of our beliefs and fears but he might not be able to hear who organized this slavery.

Compartmentalized because one might be very open about UFO but totally close about 9/11 or vice-versa.

Another important point is to not fall into internal consideration : "I will finally have the opportunity to show how much I know about this topic" but external consideration : "what is my interlocutor ready to hear ? What does he want to know ?"

 

[PepperFritz]

I have found the following strategy very useful when discussing controversial subjects issues on which there is extremely polarized thinking. I'll use the example of "alien abductions" rather than 9/11 as an example, only because I've never been asked for my opinion on the latter subject by someone with an opposing point of view:

Let's say (1) represents the view that it's all nonsense made up by crazy people, and (10) represents the view that its a very real phenomenon that is happening on a widescale basis, that the government has been actively covering up if not complicit in. Even though my own view is in fact (10), when initially asked, I'll put forth a view that corresponds to around a (5) on the scale. That allows me to express and agree with the other person's skepticism and find some initial common ground with him (e.g. "Well, when I first started looking into this, I thought, what these people are claiming is just so OUT THERE, and so impossible to believe, there's just no way...."). Whereas if I had started at (10), our views would have been too far apart, and it would have resulted in the other person closing his mind to anything I might have to say.

Then slowly I'll introduce information in a kind of "musing" rather than "argumentative" manner, as though I have no particular investment in the subject (e.g. "But, you know, I was so fascinated as to why there are SO MANY people who are telling these stories, that I started to investigate it, thinking, are these people having a kind of mass hallucination, or what?"). And ever so gently I'll take them to (6) ("The strange thing is that these people always pass the polygraph tests given to them...."), then to a (7) ("And I've read a whole bunch of cases where people wake up with the strange scars on their bodies, and with nosebleeds, physical evidence that can't be disputed...."), then on to an (8), (9), etc. At no point do I ever admit to having a (10) position myself, all I do is talk about the many "questions" that my investigations have raised that do not permit me to to hold a (1) view anymore.

I find that as long as I remain flexible and uncommitted to a specific position on the scale, then the other person seems to feel free to loosen their commitment to their (1) position and share my "speculations" about the issue. In my experience, the other person inevitably comes back at some point having gone up the scale at least a notch or two, to, say, a (3), wanting to talk to me further about the subject. Sometimes they stop at (3), sometimes I've led people all the way to (10), but they always move to some degree.

It's analogous to trying to persuade someone who is afraid of water to go into a pool. You're not likely to persuade them if you try to get them to dive into the deep end with you, or if let them know that that's where you're eventually going to take them. But if you lead them ever so slowly from the shallow end of the pool, and gradually acclimatize them.... Of course, such an approach takes considerable time and effort, and if I do not have either at my disposal, I simply change the subject....

 

[gwb1995]

Pepperfritz,

I have struggled with this for years. First, I would charge like a bull with the intention of Converting the person over to my way of thinking, much like the many preachers in the world. Now my approach is mostly 180 degrees the opposite. I just can't find the balance I need when it comes to being externally considerate.

Your method really made a lot of sense and was very understandable with the manner you broke it down. Thanks for posting this. I still have questions on when I might be crossing the line and violating ones free will. Any other suggestions on how I might hone my skills and know when I quit being externally considerate and cross over to being internally considerate?

gwb

 

[PepperFritz]

I learned at an early age to not go around talking about my "strange ideas" about things, because it tended to upset people and bring unpleasant things down upon me. As a result, I have always practiced a form of "Strategic Enclosure", and rarely volunteer my views on "controversial subjects" unless asked directly in a sincere manner. So I have never had the urge/compulsion/need to persuade others to my way of thinking; since thinking differently than others, and having few people to share my thoughts and ideas with, was just something I resigned myself to. So, when someone asks me for my opinion about, say, "alien abductions", my reaction is first, surprise that they have asked and are interested; then reticence, for fear I will upset them; then a reluctant desire to give them the knowledge that I believe they are sincerely seeking. And so I then begin thinking about how to best approach the subject in a way that will reach them and answer their need.

So INTENT and MOTIVATION is the first thing you have to look at. I think that if your primary intent and motivation is to be able to share your knowledge with someone, or to change someone else's mind, to make them see the "truth", you are still in the realm of Internal Consideration, in that it is your own needs that are taking precedence. And that will naturally affect your ability to discuss the subject in the best possible way. However, when it is the other person's sincere desire to KNOW that you are responding to, to the need that they have expressed and you are able to discern in them, you naturally focus on what will best facilitate your delivery of what they require.

I think a good first step to becoming the "relayer of knowledge" that you want to be to others, is to master Strategic Enclosure and to consciously dampen your own need to "share". Until such time as you are able to discern and separate your own needs from another's. For as long as you have such a strong need yourself, you will always been looking for "openings" and in danger of seeing a need in someone else, when it is really just your own need projected onto them. I'm tempted to say that enthusiasm on your part is probably a bad sign, and that reticence perhaps signals the fact that you have become aware of the heavy seriousness involved in setting out to change another's world view via your knowledge, which as we all know, can be a traumatic, life changing experience....

 

[gwb1995]

Pepperfritz
So INTENT and MOTIVATION is the first thing you have to look at. I think that if your primary intent and motivation is to be able to share your knowledge with someone, or to change someone else's mind, to make them see the "truth", you are still in the realm of Internal Consideration, in that it is your own needs that are taking precedence.

I understand what you are saying. This is where I was at a while back. When I first came across the QFS site and all the material, the more I read, the more I wanted to share it with those surrounding me. My intent then, was to correct 'their' thinking and solve all my 'problems' that I thought were being caused by them (my family and friends). I did not understand or 'see' at this time that my many 'I's' were the problem. I had not even started doing any recapitulation work on myself at all. I was merely running with my new found knowledge and throwing it around at those who I thought needed it. Of course, I have since realized that I had not learned anything in reality. It was a long time before I learned that I must work on myself first. I was not aware of the material now listed as 'must read' when I started. So I read a lot and ran around thinking that I had all this new 'knowledge', without the understanding of how dangerous it was for me not having a clue of who or what I am when it came to my true self.

I think I have since passed the point that I just jump into being internal considerate, without at least thinking of what it is I am doing. Not that I am passed the point of it happening, just that I think I am more aware now and starting to see what it is I am doing. I guess what I am saying is that the motivation has changed from me or self, and I am now trying to learn how to move forward in my learning.

Pepperfritz
I think a good first step to becoming the "relayer of knowledge" that you want to be to others, is to master Strategic Enclosure and to consciously dampen your own need to "share". Until such time as you are able to discern and separate your own needs from another's.

As I tried to state in my post earlier, I am now leaning on the opposite side of the curve, and not willing to engage most people outside of this forum in subjects that could/do concern the work. I have a feeling or mindset that with the state of this world, it is more dangerous for myself to engage others with my thoughts in discussions that I am on the opposite side of the conversation or thought process. Since I am still just learning about myself, and with things as they are, I am not ready to 'teach' anyone at this point. Maybe I am missing something here, so please pass on your thoughts here. Any thoughts are welcome.

I do think that what you are stating about mastering Strategic Enclosure is the right path. I need to go back and do much more research. I appreciate what you have said and will use this to move forward.

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

Well thankyou to all those who have offered various pieces of advice on this matter. I'd like to especially thank PepperFritz for the advice relating to shifting someone a couple of notches up the scale by temporarily reducing one's own position so that you don't appear so "extreme" to that other person.

It's all rather ironic, though, because this friend who asked about the 9/11 conspiracy (and would have been a (1) on the belief scale) actually fully believes that the U.S. Government has been covering up the UFO phenomenon for decades. She would be a (9) or (10) on that belief scale. So it makes me wonder where the discrepancy arises in her thinking.

So INTENT and MOTIVATION is the first thing you have to look at. I think that if your primary intent and motivation is to be able to share your knowledge with someone, or to change someone else's mind, to make them see the "truth", you are still in the realm of Internal Consideration, in that it is your own needs that are taking precedence. And that will naturally affect your ability to discuss the subject in the best possible way. However, when it is the other person's sincere desire to KNOW that you are responding to, to the need that they have expressed and you are able to discern in them, you naturally focus on what will best facilitate your delivery of what they require.

My primary intent and motivation undoubtedly arose from self-importance. The friend came out and accused all people who believed in the 9/11 conspiracy as "stupid". But the thing is, I wasn't insulted by that slur because I know many people think that way. Rather, I was "defending" my views as if the friend had only come out and said "I don't believe in the conspiracy". In any case, the defensive nature of my response was still self-important. And because I couldn't see any real desire in this person to KNOW, I thought, "Well to hell with her, I'll just come right out and imply how stupid she is for saying such a thing based on flimsy, twisted and plain wrong information from the powers that be." I couldn't see any way to facilitate this person's learning, because this person seemed closed. But the thing is, I feel it MAY have moved her up a notch or two, though the same, or even better result could have been achieved if I'd done it in an externally considerate manner.

But all of this was the first time I've ever really had to discuss the 9/11 matter so openly in front of someone unwilling to know the truth. Like most who post here, I don't go out of my way to discuss the matter at all. In fact a couple of times while at work, some people have brought up the topic of how terrible it was that those Arab terrorists attacked the Twin Towers. In both situations, while I was very tempted to say something (and it certainly wouldn't have been so obvious as "I believe it was an inside job"), I held my tongue and didn't say a word because I felt at the time it would achieve nothing and they probably weren't ready to hear such information in any case. But the difference between this situation and the more recent one is that in the recent case, the person came right out and said she didn't believe the conspiracy and that all who did were stupid.

Anyway, if ever this situation should arise again, I will give the other party the idea that my views reside around (5) on the belief scale, and then proceed cautiously from there.

 

[nicklebleu]

Hi,

This is a very interesting question and there are a few points worth mentioning:

1. While I think that one can use the opportunity when this topic is being raised to mention the conspiracy behind 911, I personally find it most of the time pretty unsatisfactory or even a waste of time: Either the person thinks I am a proper lunatic, or he/she has come to the same position on her own. The conspiracy theory is not exactly new, so anyone remotely interested will have a LOT of information just by putting "911" through Google. So if someone hasn't heard about 911 conspiracy theories and at least some of the dispute around that, he or she is truly ASLEEP.

2. The next problem is, that some people may get along for a certain time, but you will reach a point, where for things to make sense, you will have to raise the "extradimensional forces" involved, and that is a step I found most people are unwilling or unable to take. So they will mostly (and rightly) come to the conclusion, that such a vast and complex conspiracy would be impossible to pull off in our world of deceit, lies, leakages and mis-/disinformation, which is as prevalent in goverment circles as elsewhere. For someone to understand the whole depth of the problem, one has to be prepared to throw overboard pretty much all convictions and beliefs held sofar. And that has been something in my experience (or circle) that is very unlikely to happen.

3. I also agree with others, that one has to ivestigate the REASON behind oneself trying to convince anyone of his or her point of view (cf. internal vs external consideration). The most important bit is not for me to change the mind of others, it's to change MY mind. Now if someone truly asks, then I think one has the obligation to discuss the conspiracy theory (on PF "pain" scale of 5/10) and increase the "pain" as long as the person involved is able to follow.

So mostly I have stopped advancing the 911 conspiracy theory actively. I merely remain vague and point out a few discrepancies of the "official" line like: "I really wonder why WTC 7 collapsed, even though it was not hit by a plane", or "Funny coincidence, that on 9/11 the goverment held a training excercise which was exactly what later happened, and which - even more funny - was repeated with the London underground bombing ...". This gives enough food for thought for an interested person to go and investigate this him- or herself.

 

[PepperFritz]

I merely remain vague and point out a few discrepancies of the "official" line .... This gives enough food for thought for an interested person to go and investigate this him- or herself.

Exactly. I think the best any of us can do is to gently plant a seed. If the soil is fertile, it'll grow on its own. If it's not, it doesn't matter how much "fertilizer" we throw at it....

 

[dant]

Exactly. I think the best any of us can do is to gently plant a seed. If the soil is fertile, it'll grow on its own. If it's not, it doesn't matter how much "fertilizer" we throw at it....

Yes, IMO, describes "The Parable of the Sower"

 

[PepperFritz]

Maybe I am missing something here, so please pass on your thoughts here....

Sounds to me like you're on the right track.

I do think that what you are stating about mastering Strategic Enclosure is the right path.

Yes, I don't think that the importance of Strategic Enclosure can be over-emphasized. Unfortunately, I don't have much nuts-and-bolts advice to offer on how to develop it, as mine developed naturally from a young age due to my life circumstances, sometimes to my detriment (those close to me have often accused me of being "secretive"). I guess one has to get into the habit of stopping to observe oneself before "sharing", to consider what "benefit" -- both to the other party and oneself -- that it might or might not have.