Half a century of life has taught me to accept a flaw of human beings as something incurable: their dissatisfaction.

I have traveled around the world countless times and met many, many people. I have been in close contact with countless initiatory fraternities, cultural entities, professional associations, sports academies, universities, schools, companies, federations, foundations... In all of them, without exception, there was discontent.

In every human grouping there is a cohesive force called an egregore. According to the law of action and reaction, every force tends to generate an opposing force. Therefore, in these same groupings, small disagreements constantly arise that take on dramatic contours through the refraction of an egocentric perspective that only takes into account the satisfaction of the expectations of an isolated individual who analyzes the facts according to their own conveniences.
In other words, if the facts could be analyzed without the deleterious interference of egos, it would be found that there is nothing wrong with these facts, other than emotional instability. Instability that is congenital in all human beings. A kind of original design flaw, which is still in the process of evolution. After all, we are an extremely young species compared to other life forms on the planet. We are in the infancy of our evolution and, as such, we inevitably commit the natural immaturities of this phase.

Note that very few people are satisfied with their worlds. In general, everyone has complaints about their work, their subordinates and their superiors; about their remuneration and recognition for their work; complaints about their parents, their children, their spouses, their condominium, the government of their country, their state, their city, the police, the justice system, the traffic department, taxes, ill-mannered neighbors, unskilled drivers, undisciplined pedestrians... So much to complain about, isn't it?

If we go down this path, we will conclude that the world is not a good place to live and we will continue to be bitter and make others bitter. Or we will commit suicide!

Already in antiquity, the Hindus observed this phenomenon of endemic human dissatisfaction and taught how to solve it:
If the ground has thorns, don't try to cover the ground with leather. Cover your feet with shoes and walk on the thorns without being bothered by them.

In other words, the solution is not to complain about people and circumstances to try to change them, but to educate yourself to adapt. The correct attitude is to stop childishly wanting things to change to satisfy your ego, but to change yourself to adjust to reality. That is maturity.

The other attitude is neurotic, because you will never be able to modify people or institutions to fit your desires. Don't be a misfit.

So, let's stop with that. Let's accept people and things as they are. And let's try to like them. You will notice that they start to like you much more and that the situations that seemed immovable to you before, now change spontaneously, without you having to demand it from them. Try it. You will like the result!

From the book Change the world, start with you,
Professor DeRose, Egrégora Books

Where there is subtlety, in general, there is good manners. Subtlety has to do with polish, refinement.

Subtlety in the way of holding a cup, a glass, a fork. Subtlety in the way of sitting on the sofa without throwing yourself on it or turning over in bed without disturbing the partner who is there. Subtlety in the way of touching people and objects. Subtlety in the way of closing a friend's car trunk. Subtlety in replacing things exactly where we took them from, in other people's houses, no matter how intimate we are. Subtlety in selecting friendships and the people we will get involved with emotionally. Subtlety in the way of complaining or in the way of telling a truth.

There is nothing more pleasant than being able to say to someone:

• I don't know if I would like that. And the other person understands that you don't want it in any way, doesn't insist and doesn't ask why. Can you imagine if, to obtain this result, you needed to say:
• Look here, my friend. I'm not in the mood, do you understand me? Stop insisting.

And, worse, if the specimen of Homo sapiens did not understand words and you needed to resort to physical force in order to be respected! For example, having to lock a room so that the humanoid understands that it is not to enter! Once, I had a secretary who did not respect the closed door of my office. It had to be locked or she would burst into my privacy.

I believe that by comparing with the opposites, the concept of subtlety and its value become clearer, right?
Subtlety is the assistant not leaving for later (Leave it there, I'll do it later.) what his superior requests and, on top of that, forgetting and not doing it.

Subtlety is not borrowing anything, but if you do, returning it soon and in perfect condition. It is not touching other people's books and other objects. It is not putting anything on the other person's desk, and leaving it there, contributing to the confusion or increasing the stress.
Subtlety is being delicate, attentive, careful, gentle, kind. Being subtle is striving not to do anything that might displease others. It is being a cat and not a dog when moving, stepping, bumping and touching.
Being subtle is absorbing and assimilating a polite hint instead of behaving like a stone wall and rejecting the criticism, returning it automatically to defend yourself.

The city of Canela, in Rio Grande do Sul, is very cold in winter. Once, visiting a friend, I stayed two days at her house. She was a very good hostess, as the gauchos usually are. She provided tasty snacks, fragrant bed linen, fluffy towels for the bath. After the shower, she elegantly asked if everything was to my liking. Subtly, I informed her that the shower in the guest room was not heating up and joked that it didn't matter because a cold shower in winter is an excellent benefit for circulation. We were intimate enough for the joke. Imagine my perplexity when I heard her reply:

• Yeah... but I also had to take a cold shower at your house[1]. We laughed a lot at the reciprocal misfortune and remained friends. But I still carry with me the cruel doubt: could she have been offended? It is atrocious to have to preserve a friendship at the cost of walking on eggs. One thing she lost forever. I will never contribute with constructive criticism again, because I realized that she does not accept it. And I will never use subtleties with her again.

Being subtle is recognizing a mistake that has been pointed out to you by someone else, even when you disagree and think you are right. I have some friends, excellent people, but who are always on the defensive. They never listen and never accept. They need to justify themselves always.

In fact, if we analyze coldly, as coldly as my bath, we need to recognize a definition that states: neurosis consists of having learned wrong, in having assimilated a wrong education. Thus, we can conclude, the ill-mannered is a neurotic. An example is the behavior observed in some cultural strata that learn to not take offense home and, as a result, perhaps take home a black eye, an enmity for the rest of their lives or a criminal lawsuit for assault. There is no question that such people have learned the wrong way to live.

Being subtle is synonymous with being well-mannered, even when the origin is humble, even if one has never read a book of etiquette.

[1] Because she didn't know how the shower with central gas heater worked, with one hot water tap and one cold water tap.

From the book Method of Good Manners,
Professor DeRose, Egrégora Books.

The path of self-knowledge is the pursuit of authenticity. And the pursuit of authenticity is a process of freeing ourselves from the tyranny of the common.

Discovering those things that at some point we imagined could be different, that could be better, but that we resigned ourselves to because they are common. Oh well, everyone does it that way.

Staying attentive to those things that we never imagined possible, that are totally outside our imagination, but that when we see them we recognize them as authentically our own.

Like all qualities, some people have them innately and others need to develop them. Some are endowed with authenticity and are indissoluble in the mass. Others find it more difficult, they mirror themselves in the nearest one and have difficulty differentiating their own thoughts from the echo of someone else's.

And it all starts with innocent observation. Observe what we feel in certain situations, but what we really feel and not the idea we have of what someone should feel in that circumstance. Observe the flow of our thoughts and perceive how sometimes brilliant ideas, warnings or questions spring up that we simply ignore. Observe what we dream, which in the language of symbols puts us face to face with everything that our subconscious is processing.

Through simple observation, all artificial additions fade away and we find that authentic core that knows no limits and is totally free from the moorings of the normal.

From an early age, I couldn't see myself working in something that didn't gratify me. I didn't even see work as a source of income. When I was eight years old, I told my parents that it wasn't fair that the garbage collector earned less than the doctor. My father explained that the doctor studied and, therefore, was entitled to a higher salary than the garbage collector. And that, for that very reason, I should study, to get a good job and earn well.

In my childish logic, I questioned the fact that the garbage collector was already doing a more unpleasant job. Besides that, should he earn less? I told my father that everyone should earn the same and that some would earn x in a more rewarding job and others the same x in a role not so pleasant, according to each one's ability, but that this should not interfere with the earnings.

Of course, no one agreed with this premise. But the idea that we should pursue a career that we find enjoyable, remained in my mind forever.
Have you ever noticed that workers, in general, sacrifice themselves by doing a job that oppresses them, humiliates them, wears them down, consumes them, generates diseases...? They do it from Monday to Friday and have no life, but sublife (that's why it is said that work gives subsistence, subexistence). They sacrifice themselves from Monday to Friday to be able to enjoy a weekend of leisure or rest.

I have never seen work from that perspective. I have always believed that it should be pleasant, fun, enjoyable, stimulating. But that clashed with the concept that work has to be something you do against your will, for money. This generated the syndrome of I'm glad it's Friday and what the hell is Monday.

If we ask any employee if they prefer to be there, working, or at home resting, or doing sports, or traveling, etc., almost all will agree that they are only there, working, because they need the money.

Let's admit that this is not a pretty vision. The consequence of this is that many people sabotage the company or the boss. If they can, they stay there doing nothing, wandering around, going for a coffee, talking to their colleagues, cluttering up the productive machine. That is, when they don't take home a ream of paper, a stapler or anything they can steal to compensate for their frustration.

In the 1990s, a survey was conducted to find out how much time an employee of a company actually works in an eight-hour day. The conclusion was that they work, effectively, for a maximum of two hours. So why waste your existence, in there, the other six hours of the day for your whole life? Wouldn't it be better to do your part in two hours and then go home? But we are victims of the paradigm that the employee needs to be at the post during the entire workday. Of course, in some professions, this concept is changing to the home office. But let's be realistic, there are still few.

From the book Sucesso, Professor DeRose, Egrégora Books.
Pocket Sucesso

What we propose has nothing to do with suppressing rage. The concept of conflict management consists of using intelligence instead of rambling emotion. Suppressing would be preventing the free flow of destructive emotion. Managing conflicts consists of not blocking, but instead directing, channeling, sublimating so that emotions come out, flow freely, but in the direction that best suits us with a view to future results.

My youth was spent on the beaches of Ipanema and Leblon. From childhood we learned not to fight the current. If the current catches us, we must not fight it by swimming towards the mainland. The result would be fruitless; we would end up exhausting our strength and dying drowned. Every good open sea swimmer knows that if he falls into a current he must swim with it, outwards, turn around and only then swim towards the beach. So it is also in human and affective relationships.

When I was younger, my hair was unruly (thank goodness it was just the hair). For years I changed hairdressers, looking for a solution, but all attempts to tame that hair with my own will were frustrated. Until one day an older professional told me not to fight the hair. It's no use combing it backwards, because that's not its nature. Give in to the tendency of the hair and brush it first towards the forehead. Then downwards. And only then, backwards. I did it, and I was perplexed! The hair accepted my command and behaved as I wanted.

These two examples are intended to illustrate that, to win, sometimes it is necessary to know how to give in. Not to repress oneself, but to apply leadership strategies.

I read a lot about dog training to raise my weimaraner daughter. The best method to get a dog to do what you want is to captivate him, and not measure strength with him, yell at him, much less punish or beat him. Somewhere I heard the phrase: man is a dog with an opposing thumb. The trainer was referring to how easy it is to induce a man to do what his girlfriend wants, as long as she knows how to apply the leadership of positive reinforcement. And also because men, like dogs, can't think of more than one thing at a time!

We all want to have things under control. Well, the most rational way that provides the best results is not to play hardball or vomit emotions haphazardly. When one understands that whoever says what they want hears what they don't want, their words and actions become more intelligent.

Imagine an enormous stone, stable at the edge of a ravine. The stone is our emotional plane. While it is there, standing, it gives us the impression that its stability is perennial. However, its position makes it susceptible to rolling downhill. It takes just a small touch, perhaps with the tip of the index finger, to make it lose its apparent stability and plunge down, destroying everything. That's how our emotional works. One moment you are happy and cheerful; the next moment - due to any eventuality - you become furious or saddened.

On the other hand, if the stone begins to oscillate in the position in which it is located, a finger on the other side is also enough to prevent it from starting to roll. This is how our emotional works.

Just one finger is enough to prevent a disaster, as long as it is applied at the right time, before the trigger. Do you remember the story of Peter, the Dutch boy-hero? He saw a crack in the dike and put his little finger to prevent the force of the water from enlarging the hole and eventually breaking the dike. Just one finger, the finger of a creature, was enough to prevent a tragedy.

If you manage to detect a threat of an emotional outbreak just an instant before it breaks out, it will be very easy to avoid that fit of nerves: it will be enough to put your finger in the gap in the dam.

I learned that with my weimaraner. Dogs, like humans, always give signals a second before what they intend to do next. If their guardian delays sending a diversion command, the dog shoots, for example, to cross the street! But if the human perceives the intention in the previous instant and gives the command (stay or no or any other), the educated dog, which has not yet started the action, obeys.

Book: Furry Angels (EN)
Book: Change the world, start with yourself

Cordiality comes from the Latin cordis, heart. It is something we do from the heart, with affection, with love.

Expressing cordiality as a lifestyle, in addition to being a beautiful stance before life, before the world, is good for ourselves. In the past, there were even remedies that were called cordials, because they were good for the heart. In fact, you are left with a feeling of a lighter heart when you manifest a beautiful, affable attitude, with whoever it may be. This shows us that the greatest beneficiary is not the other who was the target of our kindness, but ourselves, in the first place.

Civility opens doors, facilitates social, cultural and even bureaucratic processes. A cordial student captivates their teachers, who will thus make their school life easier. A kind employee oils the relationships with customers, colleagues and superiors. A friendly customer gets more goodwill and sometimes even a discount from the seller. An attentive salesperson sells more, earns more money. A friendly resident gets wonderful exceptions from the doorman of their building. But it is obvious that we are not going to be cordial only thinking about the advantages that this brings us.

Civility and cordiality are very easy when the other person is already being kind. But what if the other person is being rude and aggressive? Well, then it is necessary that your civility is very authentic and that you have made a commitment to yourself to be cordial in any situation, with any person, come what may.

It is no coincidence that gentleman in French is gentilhomme (gentle man) and in English is gentleman (gentle man).

From the book Change the world, start with yourself, Professor DeRose, Egrégora Books.

Have you ever heard this? You're right, but that's not the way to go about it. A phrase commonly said to someone who tries to defend themselves or their rights aggressively or rudely.

With education, everything is resolved. By conversing with civility and courtesy, you can achieve negotiations that would otherwise be impossible. When you are emotional, do not respond to anything. Much less in writing. There is a poorly soldered circuit in our brain that leads us to be more polite when we talk eye to eye and to be more uncouth when we write. I am like that too. So, I avoid responding in writing when my blood is boiling. When I need to write, I don't send it. I let my head cool down and the next day I reread what I wrote. I always soften my writing. If I can, I wait longer. If possible, I wait weeks or even months before sending a harsh response. As time passes and as I reread, I soften the text more and more.

There was a letter in which I called the attention of a former supervisee and very dear friend of mine. It took me six months to consider that there was no way to soften it any further. The result was excellent. But when I was young (read: immature), I used to respond in the heat of emotion. With that attitude, I never managed to solve the problems at hand and I also lost good friendships. It is the price you pay for inexperience.

Once, I was doing digital weight training, changing the TV channels, as the male minority usually does. By chance, I came across a program in which a former student of mine, very famous, was being interviewed by another former student, no less celebrated. I stopped to listen to them. The interviewer was being extremely rude to the interviewee. Something so absurd that I don't understand how the program director didn't warn her through the point in her ear. But the interviewee did not lose his elegance and responded with all courtesy to each rudeness of the interviewer. He rose a lot in my concept that day. Until, much later, at the end of the dialogue, the interviewer said, in a sweet voice: But, Paulo, you know I like you very much, don't you? Ready! He had softened her up. Maybe he had captivated her with his good manners.

From the book Change the world, start with you, Professor DeRose, Egrégora Books.

From an early age, I couldn't see myself working in something that didn't gratify me. I didn't even see work as a source of income. At eight years old, I told my parents that it wasn't fair for the garbage collector to earn less than the doctor. My father explained to me that the doctor had studied and, therefore, deserved a higher salary than the garbage collector. And that, for that very reason, I should study, to get a good job and earn well.

In my childish logic, I questioned that the garbage collector was already doing a more unpleasant job. On top of that, should he earn less? I told my parent that everyone should earn the same thing and that some would earn x in a more gratifying job and others the same x in a not-so-pleasant function, according to each one's ability, but that this should not interfere with the earnings.

Of course, no one agreed with that premise. But the idea that we should pursue a career that is pleasant to us has remained in my mind forever. Have you noticed that workers, in general, sacrifice themselves doing a job that oppresses, humiliates, wears down, consumes, generates diseases...? They do it from Monday to Friday and don't have a life, but a sub-life (that's why it's said that work is to provide subsistence, sub-existence). They sacrifice themselves from Monday to Friday to be able to live a weekend of leisure or rest.

I have never seen work from that perspective. I have always believed that it should be enjoyable, fun, pleasant, stimulating. But this clashed with the concept that work has to be something you do against your will, for money. This generated the thank God it's Friday and what a drag it's Monday syndrome.

If we ask any employee if they would rather be there, working, or at home resting, or playing a sport, or traveling, etc., almost everyone will agree that they are only there, working, because they need the money.

Let's admit that this is not a pretty sight. The consequence is that many people sabotage the company or the boss. If they can, they stay there doing nothing, stalling, going for a coffee, talking to colleagues, clogging up the productive machine. This is when they don't take home a ream of paper, a stapler, anything they can subtract, to compensate for their frustration.

A survey was conducted in the 1990s to find out how long a company employee actually works in an eight-hour day. The conclusion was that they work, effectively, for a maximum of two hours. So, why waste your existence in there, the other six hours a day, throughout your life? Wouldn't it be better to do your part in two hours and then go home? But we are victims of the paradigm that the employee needs to be at work throughout the workday. Of course, for some professions, this concept is changing to that of home office. But let's face it, there are still few.

From the book Sucesso, Professor DeRose, Egrégora Books.
Pocket Sucesso

What we propose has nothing to do with suppressing anger. The concept of conflict management consists of using intelligence instead of unbridled emotion. Suppressing would be preventing the free flow of destructive emotion. Managing conflicts consists not of blocking, but of directing, channeling, sublimating, so that emotions come out, flow freely, but in the direction that best suits us with a view to future results.

My youth was lived on the beaches of Ipanema and Leblon. Since we were boys, we learned not to fight against the current. If the current caught us, we should not fight it, swimming towards land. The result would be fruitless. We would end up exhausting our strength and die drowning. Every good open water swimmer knows that if you fall into a current, you should swim with it, outwards, go around, and only then swim towards the beach. This is also the case in human and affective relationships.

When I was younger, my hair was rebellious (thank goodness it was just the hair). For years, I changed hairdressers, looking for a solution, but all attempts to dominate those strands with my own will were frustrated. Until one day, an older professional told me not to fight my hair. There's no point in combing it back, because that's not its nature. Give in to the tendency of the strands and brush them forward first. Then down. And only then, backwards. I did that and I was perplexed! The hair accepted my command and behaved as I wanted.

Sometimes, you have to know when to give in. Don't repress yourself, but rather apply leadership strategies.

I read a lot about dog training to raise my Weimaraner daughter. The best method to get a dog to do what you want is to captivate it, and not to wrestle with it, shout at the poor thing, let alone punish it or beat it. Somewhere I heard the phrase: man is a dog with an opposable thumb. The trainer was referring to how easy it is to induce a man to do what his girlfriend wants, as long as she knows how to apply positive reinforcement leadership. And also because men, like dogs, can't think of more than one thing at a time!
We all want to be in control. Well, the most rational way that provides better results is not to play hardball or vomit emotions haphazardly. When you understand that whoever says what they want, hears what they don't want, your words and actions become more intelligent.

Imagine a huge stone, stable on the edge of a ravine. The stone is our emotional state. While it is there, stopped, it gives us the impression that its stability is perennial. However, its position is susceptible to rolling downhill. Just a small touch, perhaps with the tip of your index finger, to make it lose its apparent stability and descend destroying everything. This is our emotional state. One moment you are happy and cheerful; the next moment - for some eventuality - you become furious or saddened.

However, if the stone starts to oscillate, in the position in which it is, just a finger on the other side is enough to prevent it from falling. This is how our emotional state works.

Just one finger is enough to prevent a disaster, as long as it is applied at the right time, before the triggering. Do you remember the story of Peter, the Dutch boy-hero? He saw a crack in the dike and put his little finger in to prevent the force of the water from increasing the hole and ending up breaking the dam. Just one finger, a child's finger, was enough to prevent a tragedy.

If you can detect a threat of an emotional outburst just an instant before it breaks out, it will be very easy to avoid the tantrum, just put your finger in the gap in the dam.

I learned this with my Weimaraner. Dogs, like humans, always signal in the second before what they intend to do next. If your tutor takes too long to send a diversion command, the dog runs off, for example, to cross the street! But if the human notices an instant before and triggers the command (stay or no or any other), the educated dog, who has not yet started the action, obeys.

Book: Ángeles peludos (ES)
Book: Anjos peludos (PT)
Book: Change the world, start with yourself

I've read a lot about dog training to raise my Weimaraner puppy. The best method to get the dog to do what you want is to captivate him, not to wrestle forces with him, shout at the poor thing, let alone punish him or hit him. Somewhere I heard the phrase: man is a dog with an opposable thumb. The trainer was referring to how easy it is to induce a man to do what his girlfriend wants, as long as she knows how to apply the leadership of positive reinforcement. And also because men, like dogs, can't think of more than one thing at a time!

I learned this with my Weimaraner. Dogs, like humans, always signal in the second before what they intend to do next. If your tutor takes too long to send a derivation command, the dog takes off, for example, to cross the street! But if the human notices an instant before and shoots the command (stay or no or any other), the educated dog, who has not yet started the action, obeys.
On the other hand, if the dog has already started running to launch in front of the cars, there is no point in shouting no, stay, together, stop. If the action has already been triggered, it is almost impossible to stop it [1].
If you don't want to apply repression, just give the command come and when he approaches you reward him with a treat. If you don't have a treat, give him affection and play with him.
Dog or human, when it comes to emotions, both react in the same way! Being able to avoid the first outburst, it is very easy to manage the potential conflict. And the treat? It can be the derivation of your attention to something more interesting, more fun or more rewarding. It can be a word of encouragement, praise, friendship, a pat on the back, a hug, a look, a smile.
This applies not only to marital confrontations, but to any others, at work, in traffic, with friends, in short, in all situations.
In terms of cost/benefit, it is much cheaper to assume a small loss than to get into a squabble and pay much more dearly. My friend Fabiano Gomes, formerly a successful lawyer, now Director of one of our schools of the DeROSE Method, when approached by someone who wanted to sue another person, asked him:

• Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy? If the brawler said he wanted to be right, then he accepted the cause. But if the plaintiff declared that he wanted to be happy, the advice he gave was:
• Then forget about it. Fighting brings happiness to no one.

Book: Change the world, start with yourself