For many of us, the conversation is interesting about how that help is delivered because we care about our craft and the distinctions matter.
A good lesson I've learned from having to market a business is that people simply care about the solution to their problem (the reason they open up ChatGPT in the first place) being cheap, fast, and low effort. A great offer is one that solves their problem, costs little money, takes no time, and burns no calories.
Before GenerativeAI, many probably would have "phoned a friend" or cultivated networks of expertise so the resource of people that have seen a thing before (in leadership, business, knitting, whatever) and can shorten your own learning cycles would be quickly available. Not instant, but still quick. And easy. And cheap.
Just not as quick, easy, and cheap as GenAI. So we're in a new era now.
Here's the thing, though. What REALLY would help people, and lead to a deeply fulfilling life, is taking the work of intentional growth in relationship with others seriously.
However, that's not cheap, easy, or quick. It takes time. It takes discernment, and because people are imperfect and the market is flooded with, frankly, shitty coaches/therapists/etc - many won't bother. They aren't breaking down, and they aren't failing that hard yet. Enter ChatGPT.
Advice is cheap and it almost never works. The best solutions come from deep within, below cognition, through an integrated human system that leverages all of our sources of intelligence, in collaboration with others. Learning how to be a human in this way happens most skillfully with someone who has trained in and walked that path. Most fourth-generation coaches are working on developing this expertise now but suck at talking about it. "Raises hand."
Until then, I'm glad people are getting this kind of access to advice and expertise through AI. Maybe it contracts the current coaching market because coaches that work in this way become obsolete. Good.
Also, perhaps after a few years of getting sycophantic output from an AI that may or may not be trying to harvest you for its own ends, the value of human connection won't just sound like a nice to have. I imagine by then, us fourth-wave coaches will be better at communicating about it.
Appreciate the thoughtful response, JJ, but also the honing of my phrasing. We're talking about GenAI, which is where we are on the AI map right now. This is better language than LLM, which reads like a legal entity type.
After publishing, I started to think more about the classist element of this piece. I could easily argue for a class structure unfolding in the near term, where free GenAI is the most cost-effective solution for those with lesser financial means, and real-human or high-end GenAI being the solution for the more privileged among us. In the end, I imagine they converge or get darn close to convergence on this point.
Meanwhile, the available space on the coaching iceberg seems to already be tightening.
Again, thank you for teasing these ideas out more. I'd hoped for as much.
Interesting angle on the classist element. Something similar is already happening in countries without major data centers (AKA not the US, China, EU) where entire economies are at risk of falling way behind with a huge gap between the most wealthy national economies and the poorest. I imagine we'll see that in other horizons of social organization as well. If enough Robin Hood companies are willing to open source AI models AND provide excellent, free, accessible training in using them effectively, we could also see the emergence of a grassroots, bottom-up level of social organization that eschews dominance hierarchies and capitalistic structures entirely. Like the rise of collectives, regenerative businesses, etc. Those new models may do some interesting things to how we exchange value for helping services like coaching, and the ways AI play a role.
I'm showing my Aletheia training (and bias) with the fourth wave reference. That's sourcing how Steve breaks down the different generations of coaching that started with sports coaching. I'll offer a summary below but we could jam on the distinctions more at some other point.
→ 1st Gen (Performance Focus) 📈 - Classic "fix the problem" approach using models like GROW. Limited by lack of personal development focus
→ 2nd Gen (Future Possibilities) 🌟 - Shifted to leveraging strengths and creating new futures. Used structural methods but could feel impersonal or wounding.
→ 3rd Gen (Reflective Dialogue) 💭 - Process-focused on real-time experience and emotions. More collaborative but struggled with recurring patterns
→ 4th Gen (Presence-Based) ✨ - Centers on Presence as the catalyst for growth. Integrates all previous approaches while working with what emerges in the moment.
Yes, I used Claude to help me generate those points from my notes because every snake loves eating its own tale.
Ah, you punched a hole in my essay's argument about expanded privileged populations with your point about data centers. It's still true within privileged markets like the US, but I didn't consider other nations. Thank you for that.
Love the breakdown of coaching waves. Please thank Mr. Claude for his assistance. I'm sure he's a lovely fellow. 😉
I agree that our own advice on life conflicts. Most of us know how we can react and how others might, I think what we simply lack is the impetus to stop and think about it. Having a coach or therapist on speed dial at least forces us to "not act until I've spoken to Dr Bob about my crazy idea", among other benefits 😉
I do tell my therapist I need her to tell me what to do 😆 she's usually cautiously obliging, once I ask in fairness. I still prefer asking her to ChatGPT though...
What will be interesting to notice is how this changes in time. I suspect we're all about to find out very quickly, per the accelerating speed of technology and our adoption of it. Fasten your seatbelt.
Interesting topic to explore! Have you watched Shrinking? It’s a series about a psychologist that gets fed up hearing his clients having the same problems week after week with no change so he starts being brutally and harshly honest with them. It makes for good humor if nothing else.
I've found that selling answers is easier than selling questions. But in a world where LLMs excel at answers, what we’re left to steward is the experience of discovery. Discovery that is real, relational, and not always tweetable. A huge part of me craves ownership over my choices.
Is your essay a call for integrity? I think it is. If we don’t double down on what can’t be digitized, we’ll soon find ourselves offering less than the machines.
Thank you for resurrecting my childhood memories of Mr. Snuffleuppagus.
Oh, so you can see him too?? I was afraid it was only Big Bird and me.
Yes, I think you're right. If we're defining integrity as doing the right thing, even when nobody is looking, then yes. I think fidelity to our humanity is also on the table.
This is a great piece, but I do think you left one thing out. I think the nature of the advice-giving culture and its impact relates highly to how a coach and client see one another. The most harmful advice-giving relationship is between a client who sees their coach as the authority and sees advice as words on high. A coach who creates a more equal and collaborative relationship with a client creates more space for thought partnership when it comes to giving advice.
I also think that advice that comes after 'getting' someone or hearing someone is very different than advice given without those things. There's also a big difference between consensual advice and advice given softly or with invitation vs advice given as a dictate or criticism.
My issue with most ND coaches isn't that they don't direct, but that they often don't say the thing they are thinking. Instead of being in a truly non-directive state, they find a roundabout way of giving advice that feels, at times, a little condescending. It feels inauthentic to me.
When I encounter an ND coach truly unattached to outcomes and ok with whatever happens, I love it, but this is rare. If anything, there's something to the being of an ND coach that makes the biggest difference, and I'd say this is true of D coaches, too.
Appreciate you, and I appreciate you taking the time, Toku.
You've said nothing I disagree with. First, we hold space, then we make an offering. ND coaching allows for something like this, called an offering. The idea is that an offering is short and sweet, with no personal attachment to what the client decides.
Client: "At my age, I'll never fall in love again after this divorce is final."
Coach: "You may be right, but I would like to offer a consideration.
Client: Sure, go ahead.
Coach: Many of the people I work with your age and older find that not to be true in the long run."
This isn't the best example. It can even sound more advisory, but you get the idea. The coach is "telling." This, I think, is the gray area where we (coaches) can get stuck splitting hairs. Is it advice? Is it an offer? Am I just opining?
For any coach, it's wise to wake up fully in these moments and move with caution, IMHO.
The risk any coach is that if we're not careful, over time, we can buy our own press. A la, "Oh, I know where this is going, and I know the answers." The risk is that the "holding of space" can become an abbreviated box-checking exercise.
Nobody wants coaching, therapy or other help.
For many of us, the conversation is interesting about how that help is delivered because we care about our craft and the distinctions matter.
A good lesson I've learned from having to market a business is that people simply care about the solution to their problem (the reason they open up ChatGPT in the first place) being cheap, fast, and low effort. A great offer is one that solves their problem, costs little money, takes no time, and burns no calories.
Before GenerativeAI, many probably would have "phoned a friend" or cultivated networks of expertise so the resource of people that have seen a thing before (in leadership, business, knitting, whatever) and can shorten your own learning cycles would be quickly available. Not instant, but still quick. And easy. And cheap.
Just not as quick, easy, and cheap as GenAI. So we're in a new era now.
Here's the thing, though. What REALLY would help people, and lead to a deeply fulfilling life, is taking the work of intentional growth in relationship with others seriously.
However, that's not cheap, easy, or quick. It takes time. It takes discernment, and because people are imperfect and the market is flooded with, frankly, shitty coaches/therapists/etc - many won't bother. They aren't breaking down, and they aren't failing that hard yet. Enter ChatGPT.
Advice is cheap and it almost never works. The best solutions come from deep within, below cognition, through an integrated human system that leverages all of our sources of intelligence, in collaboration with others. Learning how to be a human in this way happens most skillfully with someone who has trained in and walked that path. Most fourth-generation coaches are working on developing this expertise now but suck at talking about it. "Raises hand."
Until then, I'm glad people are getting this kind of access to advice and expertise through AI. Maybe it contracts the current coaching market because coaches that work in this way become obsolete. Good.
Also, perhaps after a few years of getting sycophantic output from an AI that may or may not be trying to harvest you for its own ends, the value of human connection won't just sound like a nice to have. I imagine by then, us fourth-wave coaches will be better at communicating about it.
We'll see how it all unfolds.
Great piece, brother.
Appreciate the thoughtful response, JJ, but also the honing of my phrasing. We're talking about GenAI, which is where we are on the AI map right now. This is better language than LLM, which reads like a legal entity type.
After publishing, I started to think more about the classist element of this piece. I could easily argue for a class structure unfolding in the near term, where free GenAI is the most cost-effective solution for those with lesser financial means, and real-human or high-end GenAI being the solution for the more privileged among us. In the end, I imagine they converge or get darn close to convergence on this point.
Meanwhile, the available space on the coaching iceberg seems to already be tightening.
Again, thank you for teasing these ideas out more. I'd hoped for as much.
How are you defining "fourth wave coaches?"
The less acronyms the better, I suppose. YNWIM?
Interesting angle on the classist element. Something similar is already happening in countries without major data centers (AKA not the US, China, EU) where entire economies are at risk of falling way behind with a huge gap between the most wealthy national economies and the poorest. I imagine we'll see that in other horizons of social organization as well. If enough Robin Hood companies are willing to open source AI models AND provide excellent, free, accessible training in using them effectively, we could also see the emergence of a grassroots, bottom-up level of social organization that eschews dominance hierarchies and capitalistic structures entirely. Like the rise of collectives, regenerative businesses, etc. Those new models may do some interesting things to how we exchange value for helping services like coaching, and the ways AI play a role.
I'm showing my Aletheia training (and bias) with the fourth wave reference. That's sourcing how Steve breaks down the different generations of coaching that started with sports coaching. I'll offer a summary below but we could jam on the distinctions more at some other point.
→ 1st Gen (Performance Focus) 📈 - Classic "fix the problem" approach using models like GROW. Limited by lack of personal development focus
→ 2nd Gen (Future Possibilities) 🌟 - Shifted to leveraging strengths and creating new futures. Used structural methods but could feel impersonal or wounding.
→ 3rd Gen (Reflective Dialogue) 💭 - Process-focused on real-time experience and emotions. More collaborative but struggled with recurring patterns
→ 4th Gen (Presence-Based) ✨ - Centers on Presence as the catalyst for growth. Integrates all previous approaches while working with what emerges in the moment.
Yes, I used Claude to help me generate those points from my notes because every snake loves eating its own tale.
Ah, you punched a hole in my essay's argument about expanded privileged populations with your point about data centers. It's still true within privileged markets like the US, but I didn't consider other nations. Thank you for that.
Love the breakdown of coaching waves. Please thank Mr. Claude for his assistance. I'm sure he's a lovely fellow. 😉
Did you leave the middle part to set an example for us all not to take advice? 😆
Perhaps
I agree that our own advice on life conflicts. Most of us know how we can react and how others might, I think what we simply lack is the impetus to stop and think about it. Having a coach or therapist on speed dial at least forces us to "not act until I've spoken to Dr Bob about my crazy idea", among other benefits 😉
I do tell my therapist I need her to tell me what to do 😆 she's usually cautiously obliging, once I ask in fairness. I still prefer asking her to ChatGPT though...
What will be interesting to notice is how this changes in time. I suspect we're all about to find out very quickly, per the accelerating speed of technology and our adoption of it. Fasten your seatbelt.
*straps in*
Interesting topic to explore! Have you watched Shrinking? It’s a series about a psychologist that gets fed up hearing his clients having the same problems week after week with no change so he starts being brutally and harshly honest with them. It makes for good humor if nothing else.
Love Shrinking. The last season robbed us of many boxes of facial tissue in this house.
Oh ma gosh.
I've found that selling answers is easier than selling questions. But in a world where LLMs excel at answers, what we’re left to steward is the experience of discovery. Discovery that is real, relational, and not always tweetable. A huge part of me craves ownership over my choices.
Is your essay a call for integrity? I think it is. If we don’t double down on what can’t be digitized, we’ll soon find ourselves offering less than the machines.
Thank you for resurrecting my childhood memories of Mr. Snuffleuppagus.
Happy Wednesday, Damon....
Oh, so you can see him too?? I was afraid it was only Big Bird and me.
Yes, I think you're right. If we're defining integrity as doing the right thing, even when nobody is looking, then yes. I think fidelity to our humanity is also on the table.
Oh yea. He and Oscar were my favs.
Algorithms and optics try to steer us in other directions. At least for me. They will never win.
💪 Don't take any crap from the algos, Neela
you know I won’t ….
This is a great piece, but I do think you left one thing out. I think the nature of the advice-giving culture and its impact relates highly to how a coach and client see one another. The most harmful advice-giving relationship is between a client who sees their coach as the authority and sees advice as words on high. A coach who creates a more equal and collaborative relationship with a client creates more space for thought partnership when it comes to giving advice.
I also think that advice that comes after 'getting' someone or hearing someone is very different than advice given without those things. There's also a big difference between consensual advice and advice given softly or with invitation vs advice given as a dictate or criticism.
My issue with most ND coaches isn't that they don't direct, but that they often don't say the thing they are thinking. Instead of being in a truly non-directive state, they find a roundabout way of giving advice that feels, at times, a little condescending. It feels inauthentic to me.
When I encounter an ND coach truly unattached to outcomes and ok with whatever happens, I love it, but this is rare. If anything, there's something to the being of an ND coach that makes the biggest difference, and I'd say this is true of D coaches, too.
But now I'm just riffing. Good piece brother!
Appreciate you, and I appreciate you taking the time, Toku.
You've said nothing I disagree with. First, we hold space, then we make an offering. ND coaching allows for something like this, called an offering. The idea is that an offering is short and sweet, with no personal attachment to what the client decides.
Client: "At my age, I'll never fall in love again after this divorce is final."
Coach: "You may be right, but I would like to offer a consideration.
Client: Sure, go ahead.
Coach: Many of the people I work with your age and older find that not to be true in the long run."
This isn't the best example. It can even sound more advisory, but you get the idea. The coach is "telling." This, I think, is the gray area where we (coaches) can get stuck splitting hairs. Is it advice? Is it an offer? Am I just opining?
For any coach, it's wise to wake up fully in these moments and move with caution, IMHO.
The risk any coach is that if we're not careful, over time, we can buy our own press. A la, "Oh, I know where this is going, and I know the answers." The risk is that the "holding of space" can become an abbreviated box-checking exercise.
Again, I so appreciate your voice in this.