There’s something like a mental motion that I’d call “escalation”. A sudden leap from zero to “aaaaaaah”. you seem to be pointing to the way that brains sometimes escalate in unimportant situations (and build a narrative around what’s going on and why escalation is the self justified behaviour).
I’m currently exploring causal chains. To use one of your examples,
I asked if I could bring a cushion from home for a retreat. I was told yes. I brought it. The cushion was orange, the zendo’s cushions were black, it stuck out, and I was told I couldn’t use my cushion.
I complied, but I was immediately caught by thoughts like “but you told me I could use my cushion” and “now my meditation will be worse because I’ll be less comfortable” and “I’m not as good a zen student as I thought”.
I felt embarrassed, defensive, let down, and defeated. I felt like a failure, like I was 2nd grade Gordy again getting in trouble for being weird.
At the moment of being told, the thought stream built a causal chain like:
1. Ask permission
2. Receive permission
3. time passes, events happen
4. told something that reverses the permission
5. feel “embarrassed, defensive, let down, and defeated. ”
6. I felt like a failure, (Narrative) like I was 2nd grade Gordy again getting in trouble for being weird.
My current interest is in tracking these causal reasoning chains and noticing the moment of 5 that makes the link to 6. Often is feels like 1-4 are agency actions (my choices), but 5 happens to me, (and 6 follows naturally).
Do you have any thoughts on that?
No medication. I have no symptoms any more either.
Tara Brach is good yes.
take it seriously?
take it seriously?
That’s up to you. I’ve got a lot of value from the structure he outlines. It’s a lot more reasoned than some of the other mysterious odd things I read.
If there is something wrong with the theory and the way it maps to the practice, is it better to read more theory or do more practice and make new theories? I would suggest it depends on the person and what they have found to work in the past. And also with an awareness to the loops of bad habits—“sharpen the saw” type problems. Sometimes it’s more valuable to stop sharpening the saw, and start cutting down the tree. (rationality frame of thinking loves to sharpen more and cut less)
I can offer an explanation that might fit. Rationalists tend toward expertise mode thinking (expert from the torbert action logic framework). Behaviour like reading the book is in line with the expert behaviour.
Cfar techniques and related in-person methods are not always about being the expert, they are about doing the best thing. Being a better expert is not always the same as being the better munchkin, the better person or the person who can step out of their knowledge beliefs.
In theory, the expert thing is the best thing. In theory there’s no difference between theory and practice, in practice, there’s a big difference between theory and practice.
Having said that, I’ve never done cfar, and I teach workshops monthly in Sydney and I think they are wrong to discourage sharing of their resources. As the same time I accept the idea of intellectual property being protected even if that’s not the case they are claiming.
(I’m in the process of writing up my resources into a collection)
I too know how to juggle… Some of this post is remarkably familiar to me.
I’d appreciate this information (about looking at votes) being published in meta.
The difference between “confusion” and “complain” is a grey area. I’ve heard people exclaim, “I’m so confused. This is exciting!” and other times people exclaim, “I’m so confused, this is frustrating”.
I suspect you weren’t sharing your confusion because you had a fun and jolly sentiment behind it. But being text, it’s very hard to tell. (hence the follow up question, “how was that confusion for you?”—which I assume you weren’t taking seriously and weren’t going to answer, particularly because I put you on the defensive about mod culture and powers)
Two separate comments here:
If users knew more about what the mods were or were not doing, there would be less to bring up in my original comment.
Unclear about why you shared your confusion. What are your motives and in having those motives from a mod-power position, how does that shape the culture around here?
That’s not fair.
I don’t believe you as a moderator, who can see who’s voted, should ever have the right to make the comment that solicits a user to justify their voting behaviour in the way you’ve done.
Let alone on your own short form feed. Seems a bit selfish, with asymmetric information here.
What’s it like for you to be very confused? How’s that for you? How did the (confusion) comment add to the discussion?
I am surprised that this got as many upvotes but zero discussion. I am wondering if I currently publish true and useful things that don’t generate conversation? Should I adapt to try to publish posts that generate conversation over useful posts?
My purpose here was to generate a list of possible tags for a sub-forum system. There being no discussion I am guessing this won’t be taken seriously. I wish I could see how many people have read this and better understand if it’s a generally agreed sentiment or generally disagreed sentiment.
Not only was this not commented on, it was never referenced in relevant archipelago posts, or commented on in those posts. does that mean I’m shadow posting and in my alternative universe I am doing nothing helpful, or does it mean that this post was obviously accepted as cannon and so obvious that it was not commented on.
The word “state” might be more helpful than the word “trance” for researching relevant information and resources.
Do what you like. I’d say that some people want to know, some don’t. I wish we had tags like “typo” or “nitpick” because I might want to make a self aware comment that was one of those but we don’t right now.
I suspect people like corrections but it’s a hard thing to navigate with kindness at the forefront of “it’s spelt wrong”
The other previous way to reframe is to put anxiety as excitement. And act accordingly.
I’d offer a different question. And I’d suggest a reframe of anxiety. Anxiety is about the body delivering more energy to itself, it comes with extra mindful attention, and it’s about protection yes, but not necessarily threat.
Most of the time when I get some sensation like anxiety I’m thinking about how I might benefit from this extra energy that my s1 has decided I need. How I might use it to pay extra attention and me more vigilant or cautious for errors.
As you said it’s not really a threat, for me it’s more about my concern that I’ll make a mistake.
“anxious” energy is here to help me to be more vigilant and cautious about this concern.
This should be advertised in meta.
Archetypes are good (Caroline Myss is one author), trickster makes this world, and spiral dynamics are three places to look for modes of thinking.
Should this be its own post?
There are two cultures in this particular trade-off. Collaborative and adversarial.
I pitch collaborative as, “let’s work together to find the answer (truth)” and I pitch adversarial as, “let’s work against each other to find the answer (truth)”.
Internally the stance is different. For collaborative, it might look something like, “I need to consider the other argument and then offer my alternative view”. For adversarial, it might look something like, “I need to advocate harder for my view because I’m right”. (not quite a balanced description)
Collaborative: “I don’t know if that’s true, what about x”
Adversarial “you’re wrong because of x”.
Culturally 99% of either is fine as long as all parties agree on the culture and act like it. They do include each other at least partially.
Bad collaboration is not being willing to question the other’s position and bad adversarial is not being willing to question one’s own position and blindly advocating.
I see adversarial as going downhill in quality of conversation faster because it’s harder to get a healthy separation of “you are wrong” from, “and you should feel bad (or dumb) about it”. “only an idiot would have an idea like that”.
In a collaborative process, the other person is not an idiot because there’s an assumption that we work together. If adversarial process cuts to the depth of beliefs about our interlocker then from my perspective it gets un-pretty very quickly. Although skilled scientists are always using both and have a clean separation of personal and idea.
In an adversarial environment, I’ve known of some brains to take the feedback, “you are wrong because x” and translate it to, “I am bad, or I should give up, or I failed” and not “I should advocate for my idea better”.
At the end of an adversarial argument is a very strong flip, popperian style “I guess I am wrong so I take your side”.
At the end of a collaborative process is when I find myself taking sides, up until that point, it’s not always clear what my position is, and even at the end of a collaborative process I might be internally resting on the best outcome of collaboration so far, but tomorrow that might change.
I see the possibility of being comfortable in each step of collaboration to say, “thank you for adding something here”. However I see that harder or more friction to say so during adversarial cultures.
I advocate for collaboration over adversarial culture because of the bleed through from epistemics to inherent interpersonal beliefs. Humans are not perfect arguers or it would not matter so much. Because we play with brains and mixing territory of belief and interpersonal relationships I prefer collaborative to adversarial but I could see a counter argument that emphasised the value of the opposite position.
I can also see that it doesn’t matter which culture one is in, so long as there is clarity around it being one and not the other.
Why is that weird? Instead of carrying gold around just carry these promising pieces of paper that guarantee value.
And everyone agreed. Probably not at first.