Paradise split from: Memes and Stuff

[Marcus]

I used the term 'Other' for the axis, as your explanations seemed all in relation to caring or not caring about others.

When you are triggered, and when the crap hits the fan, who is your biggest priority; yourself or others?
When you are triggered, and when the crap hits the fan, do you care about consequences to yourself or others, or not?

This sets up the four quadrants, and the model flows from there.

I understand, I just disagree that your model reflects the actual spectrum of options people consider, when answering those questions. You've collected the extremes of "a-hole,d-bag, pussy, dick," and that encompasses the very negative, dysfunctional aspects of some kinds of communication, but in my opinion it in no way lays out the choices people actually consider in this situation. In that sense it's an incomplete model and explains only a very extreme subset of communication.

My main issue with the actual model as laid out is that aggression and assertion are in the same quadrant. There is a significant qualitative difference between true assertive communication and aggressive communication that can't be reconciled as your model is laid out.

[Binger]

Consider the model above (let's call it the meme model) relative to the four types of communication listed below:

Aggression
Passive-aggression
Passive
Assertive.

[......]

That's my take on this model. in my opinion, it represents the most unhealthy ways of communicating, by looking at the unhealthy elements of the quadrants formed by modeling the self axis and the others axis. Some positive elements have been discussed, but shoehorning them into the negative styles completely misses that healthily assertive communication is a completely different style, apparently not captured by this model just yet.

Let's clarify this a bit. This is not a meme model, it is an archetype model.
Passive-aggression is not the opposite of aggression. Passive-aggression is a form of aggression and it is powerful.
Assertiveness is not the opposite of aggression. Assertiveness is a controlled, centered and healthy expression where the priority may be one's self, done shamelessly.

If you are comparing opposites on the model, Aggression is opposite of Submission, and Imitation is opposite of Victimization. An image that may help put that in perspective, and one that I have seen others apply, is whether the elements on the axes are present, or absent. For example, the dick has a full bucket of care, he gives AF about EVERYTHING and it is always about him. "Me, me, me, me me me," says the dick. His priority is himself, and the F's he gives is limitless. The douchebag on the other hand, has put on his costume to act cool and to make you think he is cool. His true authentic self is completely absent and he give not one F. If you think he is cool, or that he is genuinely concerned, you have bought into an act that he does not even believe.

[Binger]

My main issue with the actual model as laid out is that aggression and assertion are in the same quadrant. There is a significant qualitative difference between true assertive communication and aggressive communication that can't be reconciled as your model is laid out.

There is definitely a difference. There is not just a difference of definitions, it is more than that. There are also similarities. There is a difference in the effect it has on us and on others. The main difference, to me, is that aggression is meant to hurt and control, where assertiveness is meant to communicate and cooperate. The differences can be reconciled, but for you they have not been reconciled - yet!

What the hell do we gain by being selfish and shameless? A hell of a lot. Being an aggressive, extreme asshole is obviously problematic, but being driven sometimes to do things your own way, for yourself, without crippling concern for everyone’s opinions…that’s a damn good thing.

Assertiveness requires the same orientation as aggression, without all the harm.

[Marcus]

Let's clarify this a bit. This is not a meme model, it is an archetype model.

you're right, I only used the word 'meme' because it was in that thread title so I could distinguish between the model information in that thread, and the model information in this thread.

Passive-aggression is not the opposite of aggression.

? Ok. I didn't say it was.

Assertiveness is not the opposite of aggression.

? Ididn't say that either. I said:

Aggression isn't an extension of assertiveness. Assertiveness is asserting your rights without disrespecting others. Aggressiveness is asserting your rights BY disrespecting others. They aren't the same style, along a continuum. They are entirely different approaches.

So, not anything about 'opposites', just different.

If you are comparing opposites on the model,

again, i'm not, I don't consider that the model is describing opposites but rather sets of positions along two orthogonal axes.

If you are comparing opposites on the model, Aggression is opposite of Submission, and Imitation is opposite of Victimization. An image that may help put that in perspective, and one that I have seen others apply, is whether the elements on the axes are present, or absent. For example, the dick has a full bucket of care, he gives AF about EVERYTHING and it is always about him. "Me, me, me, me me me," says the dick. His priority is himself, and the F's he gives is limitless. The douchebag on the other hand, has put on his costume to act cool and to make you think he is cool. His true authentic self is completely absent and he give not one F. If you think he is cool, or that he is genuinely concerned, you have bought into an act that he does not even believe.

I don't disagree that you are describing possibilities, i disagree that as a model, it accurately 'models' the behavior under discussion.
For example, look at your description here:

Think of it like this - If I can't control this with my force my way, then you do it and you do it all and you do it your way. No hard feelings. Where have you seen me do this...... uh, ...... fairly obvious, right? If I can't do it my way, I am just going to delete my posts and hand it over to you. People do this in careers and families and relationships. They don't just become less aggressive, they pick another damn extreme when the extreme aggression does not work. When aggression does not work, they play the victimization card. When that does not work, they act too cool to care (Imitation). When they can't manipulate or force or fake their way in, they give up or submit.

This outlines the strategies that a particular personality type might consider, but in my opinion it is specific to this personality type only, and outlines only THAT process. It doesn't work as a communication model, except for the small group with that personality type. If that's what you intended I have no problem with that.

Assuming everyone is choosing and acting like that when you interact with others, in my opinion, severely limits one's ability to interact with people along the full spectrum of behaviors.

[Marcus]

My main issue with the actual model as laid out is that aggression and assertion are in the same quadrant. There is a significant qualitative difference between true assertive communication and aggressive communication that can't be reconciled as your model is laid out.

There is definitely a difference. There is not just a difference of definitions, it is more than that. There are also similarities. There is a difference in the effect it has on us and on others. The main difference, to me, is that aggression is meant to hurt and control, where assertiveness is meant to communicate and cooperate. The differences can be reconciled, but for you they have not been reconciled - yet!

What the hell do we gain by being selfish and shameless? A hell of a lot. Being an aggressive, extreme asshole is obviously problematic, but being driven sometimes to do things your own way, for yourself, without crippling concern for everyone’s opinions…that’s a damn good thing.

Assertiveness requires the same orientation as aggression, without all the harm.

I disagree that assertiveness belongs in a quadrant with the archetype "asshole."

However, in my opinion this model format with the same axes could certainly be used to build a model of assertiveness. Qualitatively, assertiveness is simply a different beast (with boundaries!) and doesn't belong in your model with your 4 archetypes.

[Binger]

However, in my opinion this model format with the same axes could certainly be used to build a model of assertiveness. Qualitatively, assertiveness is simply a different beast (with boundaries!) and doesn't belong in your model with your 4 archetypes.

Grab a pencil and paper and draw it out. Or type it out and explain it.

Let's see it.

[Marcus]

However, in my opinion this model format with the same axes could certainly be used to build a model of assertiveness. Qualitatively, assertiveness is simply a different beast (with boundaries!) and doesn't belong in your model with your 4 archetypes.

Grab a pencil and paper and draw it out. Or type it out and explain it.

Let's see it.

No thanks, there are plenty out there. My main point is that you are describing behavior with a model that in my opinion describes the very negative processes used by only a small subset of personality types. It doesn't work for describing the spectrum of choices available, in general.

[Binger]

Grab a pencil and paper and draw it out. Or type it out and explain it.

Let's see it.

No thanks, there are plenty out there. My main point is that you are describing behavior with a model that in my opinion describes the very negative processes used by only a small subset of personality types. It doesn't work for describing the spectrum of choices available, in general.

Great. What personality types are missing? What spectrum of choices is missing?

[Marcus]

Hey Res. I am going to try speaking vulnerably here.

This feels like a very fragile topic with you; you Res in red ink, you Res in black ink, and you Res the person with a real name and a real life and a real family. I have to own that in case it feels like my posts on this topic are formal and lack the raw nature of other posts. And, maybe, this should not be a public conversation. Oh well, here goes...

This sub-topic feels personal with me, and my conversations or connections with you, because to me it felt like one or the other or both of us were speaking past each other and failing to see what was the reality of the forum. On the one hand, you saw it as a living room of your people and your favorite characters. I saw it as a silo of democrats, including one with right-wing friends, with conditions put on anyone that dared to invade their insiders club. Reality was probably somewhere in the middle. And as long as we were not surrendering to ANY other experience than our own, there could be, and would be, nothing but metaphorical pain or conflict.

Our conversations and interactions moved into two cross sections rather than intersections. When you sought to care for your self (black ink) and the board (red ink), I hit you and the board with a rejection that was ugly and inflammatory. I was triggered, successfully. I was triggering, successfully. When I sought to address my issues or interests in a variety of ways, I was met by revived rule applications, new moderators, more rule changes, new forums, more editing and chopping and bans. Nothing was ever wrong with the reactions I got, really. They were mostly predictable, really. It is a forum of avatars, it can't really be wrong. But clearly, there was/is almost zero connection happening.

It may be that connections will not happen. Some relationships expire. Some forms of entertainment get exhausted. I think surrendering to those facts matter too.

[Marcus]

That’s my bad. I misunderstood what Binger posted in the graphic that resides in Paradise. I thought it was complete, but I was wrong. That version only includes reactions. It omits the responses, which will go in that white ring next to the center trigger, one response in each quadrant. I can’t recall the labels for responses offhand. But, as an example, in the Biden meme example, I think the appropriate category for my response would be curiosity.

Sorry for causing confusion.

Here ya go, naughty words omitted mostly.

canpakes, aggression is just subset of extreme reactions. Victimization, Imitation, Submission fill out the whole circle. These are the go-to reactions of these archetypes. One is not worse than the other. One is not better than the other. They are all extreme. They can all do damage.

When you are triggered, rather, when WE are triggered, what is our biggest priority in that flash bang moment? Do you prioritize yourself, or others? And do we relieve that anxiety shamelessly, or conscientiously? Some people strike with aggression, some people just give up. Some people blame and shame others, some people just pretend something completely different is happening and imagine that the circumstances are not actually the circumstances. These are all extreme reactions to triggers and information. They are meant to control something and they are meant to dispel or stop the feelings that triggers/information are causing us to experience.

There are very healthy ways to be selfish and healthy ways to be selfless. There are generous forms of shamelessness and extreme forms. Res has been asking about this specifically as it relates to Imitation. When we make others a priority, and pitch in without shame, we are awesome. When we cast our true authentic self aside to join a frontier sex cult that makes guns in Northsouth Oregon and pretends we are all spawn of kale, maybe we have D-bagged it a bit too far.

Since we're alsodiscussing it here, just posting the latest model image.