Hello,
My partner and I have for a good while used a similar approach, and so I do generally agree. I thought I would also add some of my thoughts on where it hasn't quite worked as planned, or where we stumbled across limitations.
We have both experienced various degrees of trauma, including attachment-trauma, and there seems to be some aspects that are more easily "healed" than others. And it makes sense that the more extensive the trauma(s), the more issues crop up. For example, picturing a loving mother; I do not picture loving as in unconditionally, but "loving" as in strictly conditional. But since that is the "love" I grew up with, that is also what my body craves and is used to.
I have even, wrongfully, believed I am unconditionally loving, and it isn't really that easy to spot.
In this sense, we discovered that we had parts that weren't really "ours". There is still a lot of exploration to be done, but the two hypotheses are either that in a very deficient and lacking environment, we had to fill in the blanks with regard to a functioning inner climate, and these blanks were based on examples that aren't very healthy. Or, that similar to a parasite, ways of seeing and understanding the world were "instilled" into us, forcefully, to ensure compliance and to make us feel more "okay"/"confused" about the neglect and trauma.
Whatever the case, it isn't so much that we can't develop self-love or even self-leadership, but more that the faculties with which we see/experience the world are skewed towards a self-perpetuating, self- and other-damaging way of feeling/seeing.
Love might equal some kind of emotional slavery, and leadership some kind of forced labor. It doesn't feel wrong, it might even look like a useful strategy, a healthy choice or a way towards connection and a good relationship - but sadly, it is not. It is succumbing to the numbing terror of the poison wrecking havoc on many parts of the system, where even the "Self" doesn't seem spared.
The kind of fundamental challenge healing has been for us, is not like putting out the fire in a house, but trying to put out a wildfire with a garden hose. We have had to, and still are, wary of the all too present possibility of you getting so used to the fire, that it becomes a normality, similarly to how drinking water when you are thirsty feels pleasant, so can letting some fires simply continue burning, or even spread them, feel soothing, relaxing or even self-loving.
From experience, it seems that the layers and bundles of grief, pain and suffering that are hidden beneath the poison cumulates into a kind of cocktail, a cocktail which charms you into believing that letting things be, is the right choice. And even using self-leadership and self-love can become toxic, even when it isn't so in and by itself.
To me, at least, it seems that even the "Self", the part which is the highest developed and functioning, the true Ich, can still be corrupted. Maybe that isn't the case for everyone, but to me, it has been important to acknowledge that fact. Without doing so, it wasn't possibly to start working on more extensive deprogramming.
This comment isn't to warn against anything you have written, nor is it to give any feedback. It is more a way to acknowledge our road to healing, and also I guess as a nod to others who read this and might feel the same way:
That even when the process is similar, and uses similar tools, the damage can be much more extensive, be more hard to heal and take much, much longer to get to where there are some actual fire poppies sprouting from the still smoky, charred soil.
Sprouting the seeds of kindness, gentleness, curiosity, understanding and compassion needs not only time, but usually other people. And it doesn't feel great, rewarding or as some kind of happy occurrence where the stars align, when they start to sprout. No, it is more the transition between being terribly ill for a long time, and then slowly getting better. It becomes clear as day which is the direction you truly want to go in, and which is the one you are healing from. Even when the experience is laden with a sobering and grief-laden tint, as you start to feel all that which you haven't had the energy to feel, whilst battling the illness.
Wish everyone the best.
Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
Hello Ruby,
thanks for the reply. I'm working on a follow-up piece to this, but it is still in the oven. I am still thankful for the response. A town hall... is a much more educated guess than mine. I would love for the mission to be more specific on the how's, but you are already working on it, which I appreciate.
I can imagine that some Rationalist people leaving, might also be a natural conclusion of crafting a space a certain way. Some of the ideas I have might be more for those on the frontiers, but it should also work for others as well. And are more focused on creating a healthy and productive space, in line with a set of goals and purposes.
Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
Hi again spencerg,
You are welcome. Maybe this answer will help answer some of your questions.
What I am imagining, is what your text would look like if you started your post by describing your own worldview and your own intentions and motivations; your own answers to the four questions?
You write that every worldview has their own truth, so wouldn't it make things clearer if you acknowledge and specify the link between your own worldview and why you write this post?
I do acknowledge that you have already put in a lot of work in this, and my comments are not meant to address all the facets of your post in its entirety. I am honing in on the one part that seems a bit contradictory to me, and confusing, in the hopes that it can help in improving things the way you want to.
Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
Hello spencerg,
I'll try to outline some of my thoughts below, and maybe that is helpful in some way. To me, it seems that there is a big split between what the text says it is about, and what its intentions are, and I was hoping to get some clarity on that.
What is good?
Where do good and bad come from?
Who deserves the good?
How can you do good or be good?
To me, the relevant pieces to a worldview are, as ChristianKl puts them, "When it comes to intrinsic values, "values that people consider valuable signals" and "values that people pursue when nobody is looking" are often two different things." Worldviews are about the inner values, what you gravitate towards, how you think and your true motivations for doing things, even when you aren't aware of them yourself. Which is also something you talk more extensively about in your original post.
Which is fine by itself, but it is usually very hard to 'understand' one's own worldview. It is intrinsically linked to so many aspects. I imagine you have a deeper grasp of the differences and frictions between the progressive worldview and those of others already, but I am wondering if you are aware of the tension in this text?
On the one hand, you talk about understanding and truth-seeking, to learn to more accurately see the world. But, on the other, you also write this:
If you don’t understand that worldview, then you’ll be unable to predict what these groups will do. You will also struggle to communicate with them in a way that they care about, or persuade them to do things differently. When people engage with others who have a different worldview, they frequently make the mistake of relying too much on the stories and assumptions of their own worldview. But this is unlikely to work well, because the person they are talking to does not share these assumptions. To be really convincing to one another, you have to be able to see things from their perspective.
Which answers an entirely different question - how you 'should' use this knowledge to help predict, persuade and be convincing.
I wonder how these two are linked. My thought is that the answer is linked to your own worldview, which you haven't explicitly talked about.
My best guess to what this text, and original post, is about, is some fleshed out idea on how to make progressive concepts more palatable and readable to a wider audience, and some dos and don'ts with regard to how a progressive should go about 'understanding' other worldviews. In short, a manual for instrumental power and influence with regard to progressive goals.
Which makes the title very confusing to me. Maybe the text is about something else entirely, but since there seems to be such a split between the written goal and the unwritten, I was hoping you could clear this up for me. As it stands now, the text seems to be skirting around what it truly wants in a way that makes it very confusing to read, and unless confusion is the goal, I was hoping that this feedback could improve its clarity.
Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
Hello again CrimsonChin,
thanks for your reply, and acknowledging my feedback. Appreciate it. And you are perfectly welcome.
My wife takes out the trash bins every week, and I never thank her or even acknowledge this is something she does. Therefore she feels unrecognized and upset. Through her expressing these feelings to me, me deeply acknowledging her feelings, validating her feelings, and acknowledging all the hard work she does around the house; that might be the action needed to solve the issue.
Examples are complex. I do not think this example fits my point exactly, but I can try and show how it would work. This is of course a bit idealistic:
Wife goes to you and says: "I feel unrecognized and upset about not being acknowledged for taking out the bins".
You are both on the same team, with the same goal of achieving more connection. Since you are on the same team, you add clarity by expressing your own thoughts/feelings:
You say: "When hearing you say that, I admit that I have felt dejected and numb, because you didn't ask me to acknowledge you, and I have really wanted to".
You say the former to create clarity, not out of defense. Defense sounds more like this: "Why didn't you tell me before?! I've waited for so long for you to tell me!" (Which isn't that unnatural of a response, to be fair.)
Winning would then look something like this:
Wife says: "Are you saying you not only wanted to, but were willing to acknowledge me, and the only thing holding you back, was me asking you?" (*Belief: Receiving acknowledgment is a reflection of the strength of our bond, and should happen without prompt.*)
You answer: "Yes, I want, and I am willing, to acknowledge you, and the only thing holding me back is that I believe that I had to wait for you to ask first." (*Belief: Asking for acknowledgment is a reflection of the strength of our bond, and should happen without prompt*)
Both pause to feel and self-connect.
(I can also add an apology here, but the kind of apology I write here is more high level, and not really a natural part of this game. But I thought it might be good for reference.)
Wife: "I feel confused knowing I have expectations that are different from yours. I also feel sad knowing I could have reached out for acknowledgment at any time. And I also apologize for feeling unrecognized and upset towards you, and by doing so pulling myself away from you. I also feel relieved knowing you want to acknowledge me."
You: "I feel relieved knowing you want my acknowledgment, and likewise confused about our differing expectations. I feel down-cast knowing you have been open to receiving my acknowledgment for a while, and also knowing how much it would have meant to you. I apologize for feeling dejected and numb towards you, and starting to pull myself away from you. I also feel eager hearing you say that you want my acknowledgment".
From my experience, most 'conflicts' are like this, and re-connection is done step-by-step. Neither might have the energy to continue the game at the moment, as things have escalated for a while, and things need to settle. However, this might still be a satisfactory first win in this area for both of them.
When they are ready, they might want to address the confusion, the sadness and the apology, and lastly work out how to go about giving/receiving acknowledgment to/from each other.
In this example, they are already acknowledging their individual feelings, the feelings of the other, and experienced a positive shift between them - from being opponents to the connection of being on the same team. Definitely worthy of a small celebration.
Hope it helps somewhat.
Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
This may be possible via a private club type membership system, where there's a capped number of possible members, along with some kind of vetting process. Though I doubt the actual practical effects would be net positive, at least for a public forum.
If 'public forum' is the right temperature for LW, it is not in opposition to my point. My argument is to make purpose, sub-goals and potential 'vetting' streamlined, in order to clarify success-metrics and also have a uniform direction, instead of a lot of unwritten and unconscious ideas forming the future LW. For users to be part of and to directly contribute to a clear goal, and not just serve some vague idea of something, and for this goal to also serve the users joining that specific goal.
One issue with having a vague and broad goal, is that the goal would fit a long list of different iterations. With as broad a goal as it is now, the iteration Private club type with membership or anyone is welcome, isn't mutually excluded. But which of the iterations are LW specifically encouraging and supporting? What is the identity of LW?
LessWrong is a community dedicated to improving our reasoning and decision-making. We seek to hold true beliefs and to be effective at accomplishing our goals. More generally, we want to develop and practice the art of human rationality.To that end, LessWrong is a place to 1) develop and train rationality, and 2) apply one’s rationality to real-world problems.
The needs of beginners, amateurs, intermediates, experts and masters are very specific when it comes to what constituents a useful and nurturing environment to 'develop and train rationality'. There might be some slight overlaps, for various reasons, but to "be effective at accomplishing our goals", there must be specific goals that need accomplishing. And the environment that enables one group to thrive, might be the opposite of what the other needs, and ignoring that is detrimental to both.
Meaning that LW might be 'the best place', but it isn't the best place because it is giving everyone on the different levels the unique environments they need to thrive, it only means that it is 'the best place' when compared to what is available.
When people have left LW, I imagine them having recognized this, that even though it doesn't specify it explicitly, implicitly the needs of specific groups are ignored or not acknowledged. And when a site opens to a lot of new members, without specific selection, at some point there will be a very significant balance shift in one or two directions, creating dynamics and shifts in balance, even without any explicit changes in direction or form.
I am arguing for a clear metric for measuring success, so that it is actually even possible to improve effectiveness in accomplishing goals. As it stands now, the goal of LessWrong is so vague, it is ruining functional reasoning and decision-making, simply through its lack of clarity and specifications.
Kindly, but firmly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
Hello M.Y.Zuo,
[...evaporative cooling effect...] This isn't very surprising as this is the common trajectory of every community that rapidly grows in size.It would have taken a super-human effort to retain the same level of quality going from 100 to 1000 users, let alone from 1000 to 10000, and so on. So I don't think that would have been a fair expectation to place on the moderators, or anyone else involved, of a decade ago.
I agree that it must be a massive undertaking to go from 100 to 10000 users. However, I question why it should be a good thing, in and by itself. The question that would determine if growth is good or not, should be related to the goals and purpose of LW. (wrote more about it in my post)
That would be akin to growth for growth's sake, which sounds weird to me as a metric of success.
If quality is even a tiny bit diluted, isn't that a net loss, regardless of the quantifiable gain in members?
What I wish for is a conscious and intentional decision regarding what kind of 'temperature' one wants LW to have, and then strive to achieve that temperature.
Consequently, to talk about the evaporative cooling effect not as some force of nature, but the result of choices. The goal being not only to make the choices conscious, but also to make them coherent with a precise purpose and relevant sub-goals.
So far, I haven't seen any good answers to this, but I am new, so might be a lot I haven't read. However, the FAQ for LW is way too vague regarding where the site is headed. With this kind of growth, however, it can head in many different directions. So, which is it going to be?
I would also like to see the community keep going, but I would also like to see the issue of specifying purpose and aligning sub-goals with purpose be taken seriously. If the parameters of the community change, it is not longer the same community, even when it is bearing the same name. And from the birth of LW till now, there seems to have been a lot of changes, some of which I assume meant that LW fundamentally changed Identity.
And instead of that just happening, isn't it better to actually say: This is what we want to achieve, this is how we will do it and what we will select when adding new members, and then work towards it? Then 'success' would be a measurable metric, instead of a vague and unknown one.
Kindly, but firmly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
Hello CrimsonChin,
Congrats on writing your first post here! (as far as I can see) I have read the book in question, if you mean the intro book to NVC? And I did find it amusing seeing you write the concept into a Kickstarter special. :) I hadn't thought of that, and enjoyed seeing your creative way to review that book.
When learning NVC, my partner and I took an intro course, and during it one of the course holders showed us a game that they made, which participants could take back with them afterward. We did play using that game when learning the ropes of NVC. I'm not sure if that would be interesting for you, and if it is, let me know and I will post a link to it.
Moreover, at this course we were told to practice on our own or with someone familiar with the method for a couple of years, before using it with others. And I agree, and believe a game like yours is best played with
a) Friend, referring to some kind of mutual positive relationship already, and b) Someone familiar with NVC, or open to working on their automatic thoughts/feelings and habitual strategies.
One part I read that I have a bit stronger opinion about is this one:
The point of this game is to resolve conflict. If something is brought up that cannot be changed by actions, it doesn't fit the scope of this game. It is always healthy to discuss feelings, and people should do that often. But if you bring up feelings that are not actionable you will not be able to resolve them in this game.
Connection is a core goal in NVC, and also conflict resolution using NVC.
If we only look at two people, conflict can in many cases be 'resolved' through the actions of self-connection and self-understanding. The way to that sort of resolution, often goes through a set of actions that include being seen, understood, heard and/or met with empathy.
I strongly disagree if by this paragraph you mean to exclude those actions from the game, as it seems to me you are implying with the wording "It is always healthy to discuss feelings [...]".
The reason is from our experiences, and goes something like this:
Person 'Hurt' feels sad/angry/etc. because 'Friend' "did something". However, through the actions of empathic presence, listening, space holding and/or understanding from 'Friend'/'Hurt' (as this can change), they boost their individual and/or relational connection level. Person 'Hurt', (or 'Friend') find out what their true need(s) are, which results in self-connection.
In the majority of our cases the actions of 'Friend' and reactions of 'Hurt' were only superficially connected, and the 'conflicts' were resolved through connection with ourselves and/or each other, and realizing the 'conflict' wasn't really a 'conflict' after all, but the cries of unmet needs.
Thus resolving it without any further actions, or at least none related to the original 'offense'.
I hope this feedback is useful to you in some way.
Take care.
Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
Hello Ruby,
Massive Edit: I made this comment into a post, which I didn't want to post, in its entirety.
I still believe the essence of the comment is relevant, so I'm replacing my original comment with these two sentences from my post:
I'm writing this because I do not believe fixing peripheral things on LW is enough.
LW stands at a crossroads. Ahead lies clarification of essence, identity and focus.
Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
I enjoyed reading this post, and felt some kind of irritation as well. When I read the last line; "Inspired by...": I wrongfully assumed it was Sisyphus, as when I read this, it reminded me of his plight. I mean, which ever way one goes about "pleasing" the universe, it isn't really a choice?
Wouldn't it be more understandable if the ants, instead of mindlessly following the "basic instincts" of our universe, would do what we humans are evolving towards, namely creating, in more complex ways, a safe, meaningful place for ourselves?
So, wouldn't the next step be to either change ourselves so that we could escape or nullify the limitations of the Universe, or to find ways to fundamentally change the rules of the Universe into something we would deem more suitable or fitting?
The tale of the ants or droids, endlessly toiling away, sounds as tragic as Sisyphus, just on a much bigger scale. Which I assume is where my irritation came from, as I was rejecting this tragic outcome.
However, as a read, I like it a lot. There are a lot of variations on the same theme, with the same backdrop of a situation being framed from one specific perspective. Which I find really hard to do.
To me, this is more musical in nature, than fiction, which is why I used the expression variation on the same theme. If someone ever puts music to this, I would love to hear it.
The only thing to do now is to find some ants, and give them some well-deserved watermelon. And to have a long, honest look at myself, and admit it: It isn't the meek who will inherit the earth - it's the ants.
Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence