I really like this.
Let me try to apply it to an example in my own life. I'm frequently telling people about a project I'm working on. I'd like it to be well received, to make a good impression, and also to enlist help or advice.
This is probably consultation, collaboration, or delegation, depending on whom I'm talking to, right?
And "how to win people to your way of thinking" clearly seems to apply.
"Never say you're wrong" confuses me -- yes, there are people you can't afford to flatly contradict, but what do you do if you actually need to accomplish a task and the thing they're suggesting seems like a bad idea? There are cases where "do it their way without complaint" is unwise. So far I've been trying to ask a lot of questions to make sure I haven't misunderstood them, but sooner or later it's inevitable to encounter someone who really is wrong.
"Let the other person do most of the talking" -- I use this often (it's also a good social anxiety hack to take the pressure off myself!) but it seems to be more difficult in a scenario where you only have a few minutes of their time and need to "pitch" an idea. Is it wrong to launch into a quick summary in such cases?
"Get the other person saying 'yes, yes' right away" -- I know to transition gradually from claims that I know will be agreed with towards claims that might be more controversial or doubtful, but I think I probably err too much on the side of never bringing up things that I don't expect to get agreement on. Any advice on how to incrementally push further without skipping all the way to becoming shocking/offensive?
"Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view" -- this is just straight up hard for me, especially if I'm talking to a stranger and am also just trying to keep track of the content of what I'm saying and he's saying, while avoiding social faux pas. It seems about as hard as "remember to multiply three-digit numbers in your head while you have your conversation!" Am I missing something?
Any advice on how to incrementally push further without skipping all the way to becoming shocking/offensive?
You want to make sure you are doing collaborative truth seeking not adversarial truth seeking. Some statements to bring people to the same side in the intent to seek truth can help. "we agree that we both want to get to the bottom of this, and with the right evidence we'd definitely change our minds. Let's work together to find out what the true state of affairs is.
Make smaller claims. I make a lot of progress by only doing small steps. you may find that you have made inferential leaps in reasoning if you make smaller steps.
Vulnerability suggests you need to dare greatly and take the risk in sharing the things that are hard to say - in order to reap the rewards of connecting well.
See the other person's point of view
You need to be able to say, "I understand that you say x" and have them agree. You don't have to say, "you are so right when you say x"
I really like this.
Silly question. Which "this"?
telling people about a project.
It depends what you want. The 4 were specifically about making a decision. Say, "should we fire Bob" or "we are firing you" vs "this is your chance to tell us why we aren't going to fire you". Where it's important to be on the same page about the type of conversation you are having.
For telling people about a project, you probably want to share and connect. Give some understanding, be vulnerable.
The rest are the summary of the book htwfim. I disagree with a few of them and find nvc better.
"never say you are wrong"
"you are wrong" is a lot like "your map is wrong". It is less accusatory to say instead "my map says this". Optimum form would be, "I am confused. If I am understanding what you said correctly you said x, where my understanding was y. Can you explain why you think x?"
"Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view" -- this is just straight up hard for me, especially if I'm talking to a stranger and am also just trying to keep track of the content of what I'm saying and he's saying, while avoiding social faux pas. It seems about as hard as "remember to multiply three-digit numbers in your head while you have your conversation!" Am I missing something?
Which parts of this are hardest -- are you able to do things like guess at when a jargon word would be unfamiliar to the person you're talking to?
Or is the difficulty more in having to remind yourself something like, "Oh right, some people honestly believe X," and then ask yourself, "So what would that make them think about Y?" while the conversation is ongoing?
I can usually tailor the level of jargon correctly. What I can't do that well is figure out how to not make my presence burdensome -- I can feel that I need to "come up with something to say" that makes it worth talking to me, and I'm not great at coming up with those quickly. (When a kid says "tell me a story", I can't do that either. I'm great at discussions, where you have to speak off the cuff in relation to some subject, but open-ended improv is hell.)
“come up with something to say”
You have the option of repeating back to people what they have just said or asked. "your question was xyz". "oh you want x". It's good for validation of what they say, it's good for giving you a bit more time to talk.
You might like to read the book "impro" to understand how spontaneous responses are supposed to work.
Interesting -- I wouldn't have connected that to seeing from another's point of view. Is there a connection there I'm missing? They seem like separate skills to me.
I'm familiar with some of these ideas, so those did feel like handshakes from old acquaintances. The problem I've always had with this type of material is the gap between understanding it and installing it. When I found it, I thought NVC seemed profound, true, and very useful, I consumed a large volume of said material, and I think it has probably not influenced my behavior at all in the long run. Without some kind of nontrivial training program in implementation of this type of knowledge, I'm kind of in a state of despair of every really taking advantage of it.
There are plenty of NVC workshops that provide opportunities for training.
If you live in the middle of nowhere and there are no local events http://circleanywhere.com can give you an online space for learning one of the frameworks (Circling) that Elo listed.
Does NVC undermine the concept of Moral Truth?
I know it distinguishes between evaluations and judgements, but does it implicitly judge non-judgement to be better than judgement, and thereby contradict itself?
You can prefer one thing over another. And nvc does plenty of evaluation. You need to be able to evaluate your own needs and work out what you want to request from people.
It can be thought of as a map and territory distinction. Judgement is in the map not the territory.
So yes. My map says that I prefer A over B. But if I get B and not A the "sadness" is in the map and not the territory. The territory is not trying to spite me. It just is.
Okay, firstly, thanks for the post and the response!
Are you saying that we can prefer judgement over non-judgement, it's just that NVC predicts that this will lead to ineffective communication and/or damage the relationship? ( I had conversations like this in mind when I asked about moral truth). I'm still confused about how it distinguishes between evaluations and judgements, but I get that they are both part of the map and not the territory (although the map exists within the territory).
Evaluation and judgement are the same. What matters is how you communicate the thing.
You don't have to like everyone but it's probably healthy to recognize your subjective judgement is not universal. "I think you are too tall for my liking" is my judgement. You don't have to agree. But it would probably be unreasonable to say "you are too tall." alone.
Most of the condemnations comes from the failure of this model to treat other people as human, worthy of moral weight, thought or anything other than to be used to your own purposes.
The loudest complaints about PUA are about this complaint, but I don't think it's the only one.
While there are certainly people who have more success with women after adopting the "The Game"-mindset there are also people who seem to be held back by it for reasons such as them showing less vulnerability. I'm not aware of good evidence that shows that "The Game" is on average benefitial.
The framework behind "The Game" is largely sold via online advertising. From the economic model is similar to all those get-rich-quick schemes and the evidence that it outperforms that reference class doesn't seem to be there.
Learning social dynamics from the book Game is like trying to learn science from clickbait media.
Try David Buss: Evolutionary psychology - the new science of mind (newest edition)
Curious if you've looked into Helen Fisher's personality dimensions. After reading her stuff I wanted to pull my hair out for poor science, but it also felt like she's a great observational anthropologist and did identify some core personality dimensions.
It was also interesting that she "based" her dimensions on endocrinology (testosterone/estrogen, dopamine/serotonin). It felt original and possibly true.
Interesting post, I'll probably look more into some of these resources at some point. I suppose I'd be curious to know which concepts you really need to read the book for or which ones can be understood more quickly. Because reading through all of these books would be a very big project.
In many of the cases I don't think reading the books is even sufficient for understanding. Understanding those concepts in a way that matters for actual behavior takes a lot of work.
Looks like you are referring to replication problems. Without reading the papers, I am not sure which way this one will hold but you can test this yourself. doing the pen-in-teeth experiment and watch a funny youtube clip and then rate how funny it is. repeat for other less-funny clips (yes it's bad science but it's worth trying)
The biggest problem I have with game and game methodology is that we all play a one-shot version. With high stakes of failure. Which means some of the iteration and having to fail while you learn how to not be terrible - will permanently damage your reputation. There is no perfect "retry" - a reputation will follow you basically to the ends of the earth and back. As much as game will teach you some things, the other models in this list have better information for you and are going to go further than game.
Isn't a big part of pick-up that you can iterate, and that there's really almost no punishment for failure other than your own emotions? I can't imagine running out of new people in any large city.
Yes that's a big part of the concept but via Facebook everyone has mutual friends now and people do actually run out very quickly.
This post will not teach you the models here. This post is a summary of the models that I carry in my head. I have written most of the descriptions without looking them up (See Feynman notebook method). If you have read a book on every one of these points they will make sense, as if you were shaking hands with an old acquaintance. If you are seeing them for the first time, they won't make very much sense or they will feel like a surface trivial truth.
I can't make you read all the books but maybe I can offer you that the answer to social problems is surprisingly simple. After reading enough books you start to see the overlap and realise they often are trying to talk about the same thing. (i.e. NVC + Gottman go together well).
In fact if you were several independent dragon hunters trying to model an invisible beast and all of various people's homemade sensors kept going "ping" at similar events you would probably start to agree you were chasing the same monster. Models should start to agree when they are talking about the same thing. The variety of models should make it easier for different minds to connect to different parts of the answer.
All models are wrong, some models are useful. Try to look at where the models converge. That's where I find the truth.
http://www.wikisummaries.org/wiki/Crucial_Conversations:_Tools_for_Talking_When_Stakes_are_High
(without explaining how) If you can navigate to a place of safety in a conversation you can say pretty much anything. Which is not to say "here is how to be a jerk" but if you know something is going to come across negative you can first make sure to be in a positive/agreeable/supportive conversation before raising the hard thing.
In the middle of a yelling match is maybe not the best time to bring up something that has bugged you for years. However a few sentences about growth mindset, supporting people being a better person and trying to help (and getting a feel that the person is ready to hear the thing) and you could tell anyone they are a lazy bum who needs to shape up or ship out.
The conversation needs to be safe. For example - "I want to help you as a person and I know how hard it can be to get feedback from other people and I want to make you into a better person. I have an idea for how you might like to improve. Before I tell you I want to reassure you that even though this might come across abrasive I want to help you grow and be better in the future..."
(some people will be easier than others to navigate a safe conversation and that's where there are no hard and fast rules for how to do this. Go with your gut)
The crux of this model is "have a model of the other person" [15]
http://www.peace.ca/difficultconversations.pdf
There are 4 types of difficult conversations around communicating a decision:
a. Consultation (Bob asks Alice for ideas for the decision he is going to make on his own)
b. Collaboration (Bob and Alice make a decision together)
c. Declaration (Bob tells alice the decision he has made)
d. Delegation (Bob tells alice to make the decision)
As someone's boss you may sometimes have to pass on bad news in the form of a declaration. It's up to you which conversation this is going to be but being clear about what conversation this is will be helpful to a person to understand their place in responding or interacting with you. It becomes difficult where there is a misunderstanding about what is going on.
It's also important when you are on the receiving end to be on the same page about what conversation this is. (you don't want to be negotiating in a collaborative manner when they are trying to give you a declaration of their decision, and the same when you are leading the conversation).
Among other details in the book.
linking back to - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
(from one of those books [1] or [2])
Bob knows what happened from his perspective and Alice knows her version of events. Where there is a disagreement of what follows from different versions of events it is possible to construct a 3rd person story. This may be hard to do when you are involved and an actual 3rd person can help but is not crucial in constructing the story. If you can step outside of your own story and construct a 3rd version together this can resolve misunderstandings.
Something like; "I thought you said we should meet here, even though I said I wanted ice-cream, you thought that meant we should meet at the ice-cream place next door and we each waited 30mins for the other one to turn up to where we were.". By constructing a 3rd story it's possible that no one was at fault. It's also possible that it can become clear what went wrong and how to learn from that or what can be done differently.
(cue business management After-Action-Review activities {what did we do well, what could we have done better, what would we do differently}, now SWOT)
The 4 horsemen of divorce (but just because that's what the research is about doesn't mean we can't apply it elsewhere) (yes Gottman is limited in value because of bad use of statistics we can't be sure the models are accurate, I still find it's a good model at explaining things).
Don't do these things. When you see these things, recognise them for what they are and don't engage with them. If necessary acknowledge people are feeling certain angry feelings and let them get them out (not everyone can efficiently drop how they are feeling and get on with talking about it, especially not without practice).
Each one has an antidote, usually in the form of an attitude or strategy that can leave you thinking about the same thing differently and relating to it differently.
I. Criticism
I would rename to "inherent criticism". Comes in the form of an inherent descriptor like, "you are a lazy person", "you always run late". "you are the type of person who forgets my birthday"[see 5]. Try to replace inherent criticism with *[6] concrete descriptions of actions.
To counter this - try descriptions like [6a]: "I can see you are sitting on the couch right now and I would like you to offer help when you can see me cleaning". "yesterday I saw you try to do a few extra tasks and that caused us to run late", "you forgot my birthday last year".
The important thing about the change here is that an inherent label comes in the form of an unchangeable belief. It's equivalent to saying, "you are a tall person". It's fixed in time, space and attitude. You don't want to give someone a fixed negative trait. Not in your head and especially not out of your head either to that person or to anyone else. You set someone up for failure if you do. As soon as someone is "the lazy one" you give them the ticket to "always be lazy" and if they are half smart they will probably take it. Besides - you don't change people's actions by using criticism. You maybe relieve some frustration but then you have created some open frustration and the problem still exists.
II. Defensiveness
Probably easiest to understand by the description of reactive defensiveness. It usually comes as a reaction to an accusation. If two people are yelling, chances are neither is listening. In response to "you are always making us run late", a defensive reaction would be, "I make us run late because you always stress me out".
It does two things:
1. claim to not be responsible
2. make a second accusation (can be irrelevant to the subject at hand).
First of all if you are bringing up several problems at once you are going to confuse matters. Try to deal with one problem at a time. It doesn't really matter which so long as you are not yelling about being late while they are yelling about you forgetting the laundry. (and so long as you deal with all the problems)
The second part is that you can't shift blame. Absorbing some blame does not make you a bad person. Nor does it make you inherently terrible. You can have both done a wrong thing and not be a bad person. After all you had your reasons for doing what you did.
The antidote to defensiveness is to acknowledge [6] what they have said and move forward without reacting.
III. Contempt
This is about an internal state as much as an external state. Contempt is about the story we tell ourselves about the other person (see NVC) and is a state of negative intent. I hold you contemptuously. For example, "a good person would not run late", "if you were smarter you would just...", "I work so hard on this relationship and you just...", Some examples of displays of contempt include when a person uses sarcasm, cynicism, name-calling, eye-rolling, sneering, mockery, and hostile humour [see 7 - emotional intelligence about physiological events]. This overlaps with Inherent criticism and makes more sense with [6 NVC].
Contempt has two antidotes, Teacher mindset and curiosity. Teacher mindset can change an attitude of, "He should know what he did wrong" to, "I need to explain to him how to do it right". Curiosity [See NVC, also [3] the 3rd story] can take you to a place of trying to understand what is going on and take you away from the place of the stories we tell ourselves.[10]
IV. Stonewalling
This is a physiological state of going silent. It is used when you are being lectured (for example) and you go silent, possibly start thinking about everything else while you wait for someone to finish. It's like holding your breath when you go underwater, waiting for it to pass. If you are doing this what you need to do is take a break from whatever is going on and do something different, for example go for a walk and calm down.
There was a classic joke, they asked a 110 year old why he lived so long and he said, every time I got into an argument with my wife I used to go for a walk. I went on a lot of walks in my life.
Because this is a physiological state it's so easy to fix so long as you remember to pay attention to your internal state [see NVC what is most alive in you, and 11. what does that look like in practice]
I always recommend this book to people starting the journey because it's a great place to start. These days I have better models but when I didn't know anything this was a place to begin. Most of my models are now more complicated applications of the ideas initially presented. You still need weak models before replacing them with more complicated ones which are more accurate.
The principles and (in brackets) what has superseded them for me:
BECOME A FRIENDLIER PERSON
1. Don't criticize, condemn or complain. (There are places and methods to do this. Criticism can be done as [1] from a place of safety or in [4] from a teacher/mentor/growth mindset. Definitely don't do it from a place of criticism. Condemnation is more about [10] and is an inherent trait. Progress doesn't usually happen when we use inherent traits, From Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals - don't complain unless you have the right answer - "I have a problem and you have to figure out how to fix it for me" is not a good way to get your problem solved.)
2. Give honest, sincere appreciation. (so long as you are doing this out of the goodness of your heart good. If you are using it for manipulation you can just not bother. NVC supersedes this. By keeping track of what is most alive in you, you can do better than this)
3. Arouse in the other person an eager want. (Work out what people want, work out how to get both your needs met - superceded by NVC.)
4. Become genuinely interested in other people. (depends what for. Don't bother if you don't want to. That would not be genuine. You need to find the genuine interest inside yourself first.)
5. Smile. (um. Hard to disagree with but a default smiling state is a good one to cultivate - from [7] physiological states are linked two ways. Smiling will make you happy just as being happy will make you smile)
6. Remember that a person's name is to that person the most important sound in any language. (I don't know about most important but I would say that anyone can remember names with practice. http://bearlamp.com.au/list-of-techniques-to-help-you-remember-names/)
7. Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves. (NVC - pay attention to what is most alive in you when you do. Make sure you know about the spectrum of )
8. Talk in terms of the other person's interest. (Sure why not. Sales are a lot easier when you are selling what people want. See [15] and NVC to supersede how and why this works)
9. Make the other person feel important - and do so sincerely. (I guess? I don't do this actively.)
10 The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it. ([9] if you are in an argument something already went wrong)
WIN PEOPLE TO YOUR WAY OF THINKING
11. Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say, "You're wrong." (NVC, instead of saying no, say what gets in the way. "here is evidence that says otherwise" can be better than "durr WRONGGG" but I have seen people use "you are wrong" perfectly fine.)
12. If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically. (hard to disagree with, but holding onto grudges and guity things is not useful. [4] gottman talks about defensiveness, avoid defensiveness and acknowledge the fact that someone feels you are at fault first. It will satisfy the psychological need arising in an offended person [14])
13. Begin in a friendly way. (as opposed to what? Sure I guess.)
14. Get the other person saying, "Yes, yes" immediately. (Yes ladders are important and valuable. You see bits of this creeping into Gottman [4], NVC [6], The game [13] and other practices but no one as yet explains it as well as I would like. The game probably has the best commentary on it, short of business books that escape my memory right now)
15. Let the other person do a great deal of the talking. (not really important who talks so long as you are on the same page and in agreement. If you want someone else to do the emotional labour [15] for you, then you can let them. If you want to do it for them you can. Implications of EL are not yet clear to me in full. Some places it will be good to do EL for people, other places they need to do it for themselves to feel ownership of the problems and solutions)
16. Let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers. (sure I guess. A good idea is it's own champion. Ideas that are obviously better will win out. You can't make a turd beat a diamond but you can employ tricks to polish certain diamonds over others. This technique is battling over little bits. can be useful but I would not rely on it alone.)
17. Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view. (NVC [6] and EL [15] should help do that better. Imagining that you are that person in a way that is hard to impart in words because it's about having the experience of being that other person (see http://bearlamp.com.au/zen-koans/) and not "just thinking about it". needs a longer description and is an effective technique.)
18. Be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desires. (NVC supercedes. Everyone has basic feelings and needs that you can understand, like the need for safety)
19. Appeal to the nobler motives. (giving people a reputation to live up to is a valuable technique that I would say only works for qualified people - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_facilitation but does not work so well if you put pressure on people who are less skilled. Probably relates to the things going through our head at the time - see also book - the inner game of tennis, NVC, judgement model)
20. Dramatize your ideas. (I don't know? Try it. It could work. will not work by virtue of it being a good model of things, might work by luck/breaking people out of their habits)
BE A LEADER
21. Throw down a challenge. (can work if people are willing to rise to a challenge can work against you and create cognitive dissonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance if people are not willing. Need more information to make it work)
22. Begin with praise and honest appreciation. (Don't give people a shit sandwich - slices of compliments surrounding shit. That's not respectful of them. Instead using [1] navigate to a place of safety to talk about things)
23. Call attention to people's mistakes indirectly. (there are correct and incorrect ways to do this. You can be passive agressive about it. I don't see a problem with being blunt - in private, in safe conversations [1] - about what is going on)
24. Talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other person. (don't yammer on, but it can help to connect you and them and the problem. NVC would be better than just this)
25. Ask questions instead of giving direct orders. (socratic method, can be a drain, need more advanced skills and [15] EL to know if this is appropriate )
26. Let the other person save face. (better described in http://lesswrong.com/lw/o4/leave_a_line_of_retreat/ I agree with this, but [15] EL might describe it better)
27. Praise the slightest and every improvement. Be "lavish in your praise." (NVC disagrees, praise only what is relevant, true and valid. Be a teacher [4] but deliver praise when praise is due.)
28. Give the other person a fine reputation to live up to. (This is 19/26 again. I agree with it. I could use it more)
29. Use encouragement. Make the fault seem easy to correct. (agree, solve the "problem" for someone else, make it easy to move forward)
30. Make the other person happy about doing the thing you suggest. (NVC gives a better model of doing what other people want, "with the joy of a small child feeding a hungry duck")
* Giving people a positive reputation to live up to. "I trust that you won't forget my birthday again". Don't be silly with this, "I have confidence that you will give me a million dollars" will not actually yield you a million dollars unless you have reason to believe that will work.
I can't yet do justice to NVC but I am putting together the pieces. Best to watch the youtube talk in the title link but here are some short points. Also this helps - cnvc.org/Training/feelings-inventory
a. Concrete descriptions - http://bearlamp.com.au/concrete-instructions/
In agreement with Gottman, be concrete and specific - The objective test of whether the description is concrete is whether the description can be followed by an anonymous person to produce the same experience. "you are a lazy person" VS "you are sitting on the couch"
b. Acknowledge feelings - http://bearlamp.com.au/feelings-in-the-map/
people have huge psychological needs to be heard and understood. Anyone can fulfill that need
c. Connect that to a need
See the NVC video.
d. Making a request
See NVC video.
e. Saying no by passing your goals forward
Instead of saying no, Consider what it is that gets in the way of you saying no and say that instead. Keep in mind vulnerability [16]. This also allows people to plan around your future intentions. If someone asks you to buy a new car and you say, "no I plan to save money towards buying a house" they can choose to be mindful of that in the future and they can act accordingly (not offering you a different car for sale next week).
f. Connect with what is most alive in you right now
See video for best description.
There is a two way path between physiological states and emotional states.
Try these:
a. Hold a pencil/pen in your mouth and go back and read the joke about the old man [4]. (expect to find it funnier than you did the first time)
b. furrow your brow while reading the first paragraph of this page again (expect to either feel confused or the cognitive dissonance version if you know it very well - "I know this too well")
The two way path means that you can feel better about emotional pain by taking a paracetamol, but more specifically, if you take a break from a situation and come back to it the emotions might have improved. This can include getting a glass of water, going for a walk, getting some fresh air. And for more complicated decisions - sleeping on it (among other things).
Everyone can train emotional intelligence, they need practice. This includes holding an understanding of your own states as well as being able to notice emotional states in other people.
I had an ex who had particularly visible physiological states, it was a very valuable experience to me to see the state changes and it really trained my guessing mind to be able to notice changes. These days I can usually see when things change but I can't always pick the emotion that has come up. This is where NVC and curiosity become valuable (also circling).
EI is particularly important when it is particularly deficient. In the book it talks about anger as a state that (to an untrained person) can cause a reaction before someone knows that they were angry. Make sure to fix that first before moving to higher levels of emotional management.
(see also NVC)
If you view disagreements or misunderstandings as a venn diagram of what you know and what the other person knows. You have full rights to make comment on anything you know but only have limited rights to make comment on what the other person knows. Instead you can comment on the information they have given you. "you said 'X', I know Y about what you said 'X'". To say X is wrong, is not going to yield progress. Instead to acknowledge that they described 'X' and their description does not make sense to me, or leaves me feeling confused [6].
From Gavin: "If I ever find myself in a position of saying - well officer, let me explain what happened...", Something already went wrong well and truly before now.
When you start the journey you will start getting to "Aha" moments about where arguments start. As you get more and more experience you realise the argument started well and truly earlier than you ever first realised. When you get really good at it, you can stop and say [6] "I am confused" well and truly before a yelling match.
NVC based, Judgement model, There is a lot of people who are thinking in stories. Related - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error.
Their entire existence is the story and narrative they tell about themselves (see also Jordan Peterson - maps of meaning). The constant narrative about how "the world hates me" is going to give you a particular world experience compared to the constant narrative, "I am a lucky person". You see this in gamblers who are searching for "the prevailing wind" or "winning streaks".
You also see this in social pressure - when people think and get fixated on, "what will people think of me?", sometimes the social pressure does not even have to be there to cause the thoughts and the actions that would be "social pressure".
Several models of thinking advocate removing the story telling in your head to relieve the psychological pain. See books, "search inside yourself", NVC, Gateless gatecrashers, some information in the Persistent Non Symbolic Experience Article.
I am not sure what is the best practice, but mindfulness seems to help as well, since these thoughts are all theoretical, grounding yourself in the concrete [6a] and observing those thoughts seems to alleviate the anxieties it can cause. But this can explain a lot of people's actions (they are telling themselves a particular story in their head).
bearlamp.com.au/what-does-that-look-like-in-practice/
[related to 6 NVC]. Any time you are disconnected to what is going on, try asking yourself an internal question of "what is going on?" to connect with what is most alive in you right now. This might be a feeling of boredom. It could be anything, but if it's not a good and strong connection with what is presently happening you have a chance to fix it. (See also the book "The Charisma myth")
[6 built on NVC] is a practice of living in the current and present experience. You can focus on another person or focus on yourself. Perpetually answering the question of "what is most alive in you right now?" and sharing that with other people.
Some examples include:I am feeling nervous sharing this experienceI just closed my eyes and put my head back trying to think of a good example.I am distracted by the sound of birds behind me.I can feel air going past my nostrils as I think about this question.
The creators of cicling find it a very connecting experience to either share what is going on inside you or to guess at what is going on inside someone else and ask if that's an accurate guess. Or to alternate experiences, each sharing one and one. or each guessing of each other - one and one.
I find it valuable because everyone can understand present experience, and get a glimpse of your current experience in the process of sharing experience with you. This method can also work as a form of [15] and [7].
(From the book The Game) This concept receives equal part condemnation and praise from various parties.
The basic concept of the game is that life is a game. Specifically social interactions are a game that you can try out. You can iterate on and repeat until success. In the book it follows the journey of a pick up artist as he generally disregards other people's agency and works out how to get what he wants (regularly bed people) through some stages of practicing certain methods of interaction, and iterating until he sees a lot of success.
I see a lot of this concept at kegan stage 3[18]. Everything is about social, and the only thing that matters is social relationships.
Most of the condemnations comes from the failure of this model to treat other people as human, worthy of moral weight, thought or anything other than to be used to your own purposes. If you don't like dehumanising people the book can still teach you a lot about social interaction, and practicing towards incremental improvement.
If you feel uncomfortable with Pick up, you should examine that belief closely, it's probably to do with feeling uncomfortable with people using manipulation to pursue sex. That's fine, there is a lot to learn about social and a lot of social systems before you turn into "literally the devil" for knowing about it. There are also other social goals other than sex that you can pursue.
If you are cautious about turning into a jerk - you are probably not likely to ever even get close to actions that paint you as a jerk because your filters will stop you. It's the people who have no filter on actions that might want to be careful - herein lies dark arts and being a jerk. And as much as no one will stop you, no one will really enjoy your presence either if you are a jerk.
The biggest problem I have with game and game methodology is that we all play a one-shot version. With high stakes of failure. Which means some of the iteration and having to fail while you learn how to not be terrible - will permanently damage your reputation. There is no perfect "retry" - a reputation will follow you basically to the ends of the earth and back. As much as game will teach you some things, the other models in this list have better information for you and are going to go further than game.
1. A valid acknowledgement of the offence that makes clear who the offender is and who is the offended. The offender must clearly and completely acknowledge the offence.
2. An effective explanation, which shows an offence was neither intentional nor personal, and is unlikely to recur.
3. Expressions of remorse, shame, and humility, which show that the offender recognises the suffering of the offended.
4. A reparation of some kind, in the form of a real or symbolic compensation for the offender’s transgression.
An effective apology must also satisfy at least one of seven psychological needs of an offended person.
1. The restoration of dignity in the offended person.
2. The affirmation that both parties have shared values and agree that the harm committed was wrong.
3. Validation that the victim was not responsible for the offense.
4. The assurance that the offended party is safe from a repeat offense.
5. Reparative justice, which occurs when the offended sees the offending party suffer through some type of punishment.
6. Reparation, when the victim receives some form of compensation for his pain.
7. A dialogue that allows the offended parties to express their feelings toward the offenders and even grieve over their losses.
These are not my notes from the book but they are particularly valuable when trying to construct an understanding of apologising and making up for misdeeds. I don't have them in memory but I know when I need to make a serious apology I can look them up. They fit quite well with [6], but are more specific to apology and not all interactions.
A relatively new concept. This is roughly the ability to:
I. Model someone else's emotional state
II. Get it right
III. act on their emotional state
For example:
I. I notice my partners eyes are droopy and they do not appear to be concentrating very well. Is rubbing eyes and checking their watch a lot.
II. I suspect they are sleepy
III. I make them a coffee, or I offer to make them coffee. (as a downgraded form I mention they look tired and ask if this is the case)
From Erratio:
Emotional labour is essentially a name for a managerial role in a relationship. This takes on a few different concrete forms.
The first is management of the household, appointments, shopping, and other assorted tasks that are generally shared across couples and/or housemates. Sweeping a floor or cooking dinner is not emotional labour, but being the person who makes sure that those things are accomplished is. It doesn't matter whether you get the floor swept by doing it yourself, asking your partner to do it, firing up a Roomba, or hiring a cleaning service; what matters is that you are taking on responsibility for making sure the task is done. This is why people who say that they would be happy to help with the housework if you would just tell them what needs doing are being a lot less helpful than they think. They're taking the physical labour component of the task but explicitly sticking the other person with the emotional labour component.
The second is taking responsibility for the likes, dislikes, feelings, wants and needs of other people who you are in a relationship with (and to be clear, it doesn't have to be a romantic relationship). Stereotypical scenarios that are covered by this kind of emotional labour include: the hysterical girlfriend who demands that her boyfriend drop everything he's doing to comfort her, the husband who comes home tense and moody after a long day at the office and expects to be asked how his day went and listened to and have validating noises made at him, noticing that the other person in a conversation is uncomfortable and steering the conversation to a more pleasant topic without having to be asked, helping a confused friend talk through their feelings about a potential or former partner, reminding your spouse that it's so-and-so's birthday and that so-and-so would appreciate being contacted, remembering birthdays and anniversaries and holidays and contacting people and saying or doing the right things on each of those dates.
This overlaps with [7]. Commentary on this concept suggest that it's a habit that women get into doing more than men. Mothers are good at paying attention to their kids and their needs (as the major caregiver from early on), and stemming from this wives also take care of their husbands. While it would not be fair to suggest that all wives do anything I would be willing to concede that these are habits that people get into and are sometimes socially directed by society.
I am not sure of the overall value of this model but it's clear that it has some implications about how people organise themselves - for better or worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCvmsMzlF7o
In order to form close connections with people a certain level of vulnerability is necessary. This means that you need to share about yourself in order to give people something to connect to. In the other direction people need to be a certain level of vulnerable to you in order to connect. If you make sure to be open and encouraging and not judge you will enable people to open up to you and connect with you.
Sometimes being vulnerable will get you hurt and you need to be aware of that and not shut down future experiences (continue to be open with people). I see this particularly in people who "take time" to get over relationships. Being vulnerable is a skill that can be practiced. Vulnerability replaced a lot of my ideas about [13 The game]. And would have given me a lot of ideas of how to connect with people, combined with [15] and [12]. (I have not read her books but I expect them to be useful)
This is commonly known as the polyamory bible. It doesn't have to be read as a polyamory book, but in the world of polyamory emotional intelligence and the ability to communicate is the bread and butter of every day interactions. If you are trying to juggle two or three relationships and you don't know how to talk about hard things then you might as well quit now. If you don't know how to handle difficult feelings or experiences you might as well quit polyamory now.
Reading about these skills and what you might gain from the insight that polyamorous people have learnt is probably valuable to anyone.
https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2015/10/12/developing-ethical-social-and-cognitive-competence/
Other people have summarised this model better than me. I won't do it justice but if I had to be brief about it - there are a number of levels that we pass through as we grow from very small to more mature. They include the basic kid level where we only notice inputs and outputs. Shortly after - when we are sad "the whole world is sad" because we are the whole world. Eventually we grow out of that and recognise other humans and that they have agency. At around teenager we end up caring a lot about what other people think about us. classic teenagers are scared of social pressure and say things like, "I would die if she saw me in this outfit" (while probably being hyperbolic, there is a bit of serious concern present). Eventually we grow out of that and into system thinking (Libertarian, Socialist, among other tribes). And later above tribalism into more nuanced varieties of tribes.
It's hard to describe and you are better off reading the theories to get a better idea. I find the model limited in application but I admit I need to read more about the theories to get my head around it better.
I have a lot more books on the topic to read but I am publishing this list because I feel like I have a good handle on the whole "how people work" and, "how relationships work" thing. It's rare that anyone does any actions that surprise me (socially) any more. In fact I am getting so good at it that I trust my intuition [11] more than what people will say sometimes.
When something does not make sense I know what question to ask [6] to get answers. Often enough it happens that people won't answer the first time, this can represent people not feeling Safe [1] enough to be vulnerable [16]. That's okay. That represents it's my job to get them to a comfortable place to open up if I want to get to the answers.
I particularly like NVC, Gottman, EL, EI, Vulnerability all of them and find myself using them fortnightly. Most of these represent a book or more of educational material. Don't think you know them enough to dismiss them if you have not read the books. If you feel you know them and already employ the model then it's probably not necessary to look into it further, but if you are ready to dismiss any of these models because they "sound bad" or "don't work" then I would encourage you to do your homework and understand them inside and out before you reject them.
The more models I find the more I find them converging on describing reality. I am finding less and less I can say, "this is completely new to me" and more and more, "oh that's just like [6] and [7]
Meta: this is something around 6000 words and took a day to write ~12 hours. I did this in one sitting because everything was already in my head. I am surprised I could sit still for this long. (I took breaks for food and a nap but most of today was spent at my desk)
Originally posted on my blog: http://bearlamp.com.au/models-of-human-relationships-tools-to-understand-people/
Cross posted to Medium: https://medium.com/@redeliot/models-of-human-relationships-tools-to-understand-people-fd0ac0ad6369
