Memes and stuff

[canpakes]

Res - I understand the general thrust of the discussion. I guess a simpler rewording of my question would be to ask if this model/graphic intends to define all interpersonal communication, or if it just attempts to break down aggressive communication.

The former seems highly unlikely. But I’d rather not assume where your thought process is on this.

Ah, got it. I think the answer is all. I may be overcomplicating things by injecting control into the discussion before we've discussed the responses. I wouldn't define an attempt to control as necessarily aggressive. I think it would depend on what I am trying to control. And that probably leads into a discussion of boundaries, which may go beyond what the model is intended to address.

Got it. I asked because of the way that all responses within the proposed model are characterized as neutral-to-negative in nature. I am curious as to where responses such as ‘empathy’ come into play. The model, as presented, seems to regard communication as a battle to be won, therefore is a model more suited to a subset of personal communication interactions, as opposed to accurately categorizing all personal communication interactions and modes.

I’ll now step back out for the moment and will be happy to observe where the discussion goes.

[Res Ipsa]

Ah, got it. I think the answer is all. I may be overcomplicating things by injecting control into the discussion before we've discussed the responses. I wouldn't define an attempt to control as necessarily aggressive. I think it would depend on what I am trying to control. And that probably leads into a discussion of boundaries, which may go beyond what the model is intended to address.

Got it. I asked because of the way that all responses within the proposed model are characterized as neutral-to-negative in nature. I am curious as to where responses such as ‘empathy’ come into play. The model, as presented, seems to regard communication as a battle to be won, therefore is a model more suited to a subset of personal communication interactions, as opposed to accurately categorizing all personal communication interactions and modes.

I’ll now step back out for the moment and will be happy to observe where the discussion goes.

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.

[Binger]

Got it. I asked because of the way that all responses within the proposed model are characterized as neutral-to-negative in nature. I am curious as to where responses such as ‘empathy’ come into play. The model, as presented, seems to regard communication as a battle to be won, therefore is a model more suited to a subset of personal communication interactions, as opposed to accurately categorizing all personal communication interactions and modes.

I’ll now step back out for the moment and will be happy to observe where the discussion goes.

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.

I will update the graphics. Awareness, Curiosity and Experimentation were omitted. Those are part of the method for staying out of the extremes. We are not quite there. On our way.

[Binger]

Got it. I asked because of the way that all responses within the proposed model are characterized as neutral-to-negative in nature. I am curious as to where responses such as ‘empathy’ come into play. The model, as presented, seems to regard communication as a battle to be won, therefore is a model more suited to a subset of personal communication interactions, as opposed to accurately categorizing all personal communication interactions and modes.

I’ll now step back out for the moment and will be happy to observe where the discussion goes.

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.

[Binger]

Imitation

This is a tricky part of this model. But stay with me. We got this.

Imitation is the extreme or perimeter behavior of the D-bag. It is hard to imagine how someone that pretends to be cool, pretends to be unhurt, pretends to be awesome and brags about conquests both real and imagined - could be selfless. Initially, you may think it is not possible for someone to be such a self-absorbed obnoxious creature and also be selfless.

What you are seeing, and what you are experiencing with this person putting on this act and front - is not the real person. This is extreme selflessness. When we cast our true selves aside to be something else, to look like something else, to avoid being anything but our real self, we imitate our way into a crisis. When we avoid reality to act like the Joneses, we can create a financial crises. When imitators hold this image until they can't, and eventually they all can't, there is a reckoning and it ain't good. There are countless examples of murder, suicide, fraud and other personal devastations that come from taking this act too damn far for too damn long.

In this forum, and in this community, we are all familiar with selflessness and shamelessness at an extreme. Anyone who has been on a mission knows what it is like to put on a costume, pretend to be an authority of something, and shamelessly ask someone to believe in something. We all have experience watching a bishop put on his suit and pretend he is a counselor, advisor, hand of god and all sorts of nonsense. He ain't really all those things. We normalize imitation so much that we can hardly imagine how this looks as a perimeter or extreme behavior. And for Mormons particularly, we actually shame people for not imitating enough.

If you look at policies in place for gays, for example, there are institutionalized forms of imitation. Just pretend to not be what you really are, and things will be peachy and great. Uh, BS. Things will be extremely chaotic, sad, traumatic and eventually shattered.

Imitation is selfless, and it hurts. It puts our authentic self aside, at a HUGE price.

In the context of communication, imitation is ridiculous and impossible. If I am talking to you about our kale salad, and you are pretending that green stuff on the plate is spinach and brussel sprouts, we are not connecting. If I am talking to you about the process of a trial, and you are pretending that something completely different is happening, we are not connecting. Imitation is meant to keep people apart, and by people, I mean authentic and real people. Imitation is the wall between people, or to use a better extension of the metaphor, the stage. The imitator is up on stage pretending to have the facts and the moxy, and you are not there. Enjoy the show.

Condescending imitation, bro, is when you can't really hang in this conversation because, well, your car sucks, your clothes suck, your girlfriend laughs weird and you don't do cool things like me. ...... leading to the pin left on the topic of generalization.... building up to it, Res.

[Binger]

Ah, got it. I think the answer is all. I may be overcomplicating things by injecting control into the discussion before we've discussed the responses. I wouldn't define an attempt to control as necessarily aggressive. I think it would depend on what I am trying to control. And that probably leads into a discussion of boundaries, which may go beyond what the model is intended to address.

Got it. I asked because of the way that all responses within the proposed model are characterized as neutral-to-negative in nature. I am curious as to where responses such as ‘empathy’ come into play. The model, as presented, seems to regard communication as a battle to be won, therefore is a model more suited to a subset of personal communication interactions, as opposed to accurately categorizing all personal communication interactions and modes.

I’ll now step back out for the moment and will be happy to observe where the discussion goes.

But it seems to me that there are all kinds of things one could try to control in an interaction. Another thing I'd like to stick a pin is thinking through the circumstances under which control issues become an impediment to clear communication and, when there is a struggle over control in an interaction, what exactly are the parties attempting to control?

Short and generalized answer to your question, Res... their own experience. Even a selfless move - to make it all go away - is controlling one's own experience. Long answer follows.

All the extreme or perimeter reactions are forms of control, but they are not all bad. All control is not just a control of another person. We use aggression, victimization, submission and imitation to control other people, yes. But we also use it to dispel our own anxiety, thoughts, fears, pressure or even our desire to have sex. The things we control are probably infinite and changing and different from day to day.

When I got in a whole lot of trouble as a kid, my Mom could not believe what the school was saying about me. Literally, she called BS on the school's claim. So, they asked her to come to school and watch me from behind a curtain in a classroom - without me knowing. Me and my buddies set the class off the rails, we were going to disrupt this entire school. We had a plan. In the middle of it all, a door opened, and out walked my mom. All I could see, was my obituary. There I was, without a notebook or a pencil or a damn thing, causing havok, and here comes my mom from the teacher's private office, breathing fire. She handed me a book - Seven Years in Hanoi - and went back inside the teachers office. She did not say a single word, she was still in that office when I left the classroom.

To this day, we still talk about Larry Chesley, his book, and that near death experience in a classroom.

I thought about that book a lot in terms of this model. When we submit, to an extreme, even involuntarily, we may get hurt. We are controlling something by doing it and sometimes it is a form of control to save our own damn lives. Some acts of aggression are needed, hopefully not too many, ya know. My point is that we are not just controlling other people, we are controlling our own experience too.

There is not a winner and loser in every interaction, despite what you are experiencing on a forum or online that would convince you otherwise. The point of communication is not to win, it is to communicate. The effect of aggression and victimization may be a win sometimes, but that is not the sole purpose of communication.

Empathy, vulnerability, service, compassion, surrendering all fit in this process. They are all combinations of taking care of others and ourselves, and doing it shamelessly or thoughtfully/conscientiously. Being assertive and taking damn good care of ourselves, for ME, is also the right damn thing to do. Those are selfless practices, and they damn sure ain't wrong.

[Binger]

From two posts back:

The model classifies reactions into four categories: aggression, submission, imitation, and victimization. Each reaction is a form of control. Each category of reaction has a corresponding category of response, which we haven't gotten to yet.

… and from your last post;

I just want to interject a brief comment on the model. Each of the corresponding reactions-responses also has an archetype. All the four archetypes are generally used as pejoratives. The form of the model is a circle divided into four quadrants. No matter which archetype a reaction or response falls into, the label for the archetype is a term that, in normal use, is derogatory.

I was also left wondering why this process of personal interaction constrains the intent of the claimed 4 possible response types with an arguably negative connotation. Is the discussion solely about the combative/aggressive (provocation) aspect of ‘personal interaction’ as intended by one of the participants? It leans in that direction but I’m curious if you are seeing it the same way.

We are all breaking this down into pieces. There is no intent to narrow it to aggression. In fact, my hope is that we round it out and show how the other extreme behaviors are also disruptive or even provoking.

If you are concerned about the labels, or even put off by it, I understand. I get that. My mother is much more upset about these labels than you. She cried about it. She really did. She cries because I swear and she says she can't even talk about this stuff with me because of all these naughty words. But then she talks about it, and talks about talking about it too. She uses "1", "2", "4", "5" and "POS" to talk about these archetypes.

To me, these are the right labels for a very specific reason. They represent archetypes on a model, and these are the names we use in real life, in raw expressions, in private and in public, with our friends and therapists and neighbors. These are exactly the words you will here and any other word would require more explanation about that word, than an explanation of the model. Simple as that. I could use a different word for d-bag, but y'all already know what a d-bag is, so why change it? Same for a-hole and the other two. There is NO ambiguity in the names for the archetypes, even if they are naughty in some subforums of some forums.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks for the explanations. That makes the role of control clearer for me. What would really help at point is to talk about the reaction-response pairs in a kind of compare and contrast mode. Especially submission-surrender.

[Binger]

Thanks for the explanations. That makes the role of control clearer for me. What would really help at point is to talk about the reaction-response pairs in a kind of compare and contrast mode. Especially submission-surrender.

Will do. Do you want to take a crack at it to start? I am going to play with my Lamborghinis for most of the day.

The short version is that we all need to be selfless at times. That is part of being a family or an employee or a partner. We all need to be conscientious of the consequences of what we do and also of what other people are experiencing. We have to be fair. When we apply awareness and curiosity about others (without abandoning ourselves or our interests) we give. We surrender to the facts without giving up. We compromise. We accommodate.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks for the explanations. That makes the role of control clearer for me. What would really help at point is to talk about the reaction-response pairs in a kind of compare and contrast mode. Especially submission-surrender.

Will do. Do you want to take a crack at it to start? I am going to play with my Lamborghinis for most of the day.

The short version is that we all need to be selfless at times. That is part of being a family or an employee or a partner. We all need to be conscientious of the consequences of what we do and also of what other people are experiencing. We have to be fair. When we apply awareness and curiosity about others (without abandoning ourselves or our interests) we give. We surrender to the facts without giving up. We compromise. We accommodate.

Sure. Put the blindfold on me and spin me around! My day is pretty packed too, so it may be slow going. Enjoy the Lambos!