The Elephant and the Rider - Jonathan Haidt's Positive Psychology

[PeaceBaby]

I don't know how much people connect with me in the way you describe, but they do see by my actions things like: I will follow through on what I say and do it well, I will keep confidences, I won't hold grudges, I can be relied upon, etc. Why isn't all of that enough?

Because they can sense you're holding cards close to the vest. It's a layer that obstructs a particular kind of connection.

 

[uumlau]

This is about film editing, but I was struck by how much it indirectly describes how human connection works. A film editor edits a scene so as to make the scene more emotionally believable. Because we're watching people and not just listening to words, the editing has to make cuts that send the right kind of emotional cues. In a lot of these examples, the editor is trying to build a human connection between the audience and the character(s) on the screen:

 

[Coriolis]

My bolding, below.

Is your quote meant to suggest that you think all values come from external socialization?

In other words, your filters are set up to prevent people from taking advantage of you. That explains what you write next:

I think this might be very close to the core of what motivates you, Enneagram-wise. Type 5s are based on fear, and the fear you describe above is very 5w6. You prefer facts and logic to a personal connection because you feel that you can trust facts and logic (type 5), but you can't trust people (type 5 and type 6).

For a long time, I felt exactly as you say you do, here. I despise it when people take advantage of my good nature. When I was young, I didn't really have any evidence of subtle gradations of trust (of connection). I was either dealing with family, who showered me with love and affection, or I was dealing with strangers who would take advantage of me if I extended the level of trust I did to my family.

To some extent this makes good sense, but there are some things that don't fit in. For instance, there never was a time in my life when people actually did take advantage of me, so I don't have that experience motivating me to avoid such situations in future. In fact, I go out of my way to be helpful to others when I can, I just don't broadcast it. In a similar vein, I always ask for my charitable contributions to be anonymous. I'm not like these folks that want the notoriety, and to have their name appear all sorts of places where they have given money. Second, while my relatives are mostly decent people, I never did feel I could trust most of them, or connect with them to any great degree. Sure, I knew they wouldn't deliberately try to hurt me or be reckless, but many of them were unreliable on a day to day basis, would say one thing to your face and another behind your back, etc.

The problem is that if you use logic and reason to set the dial, it ends up acting like a switch, because logic only lets you say "true" or "false" by design. The tendency is to ask the question "Can I trust this person?" as opposed to "How much can I trust this person?" Once you become conscious of the second question, it adds a ton of flexibility in your relationships with others. Suddenly, you realize that you CAN trust someone who is occasionally not so trustworthy. For example, you might not trust someone enough to lend them money every time they ask (and they ask too much), yet also trust that very same person to have your back when you need their (non-financial) support. (And the "dial" analogy gradually becomes "lots of different dials", lots of different kinds of trust, not just different levels.)

Now this isn't accurate. I trust people in levels, based on their demonstrated behavior (actions much more than words). My SIL, for example, is one of my favorite people to spend time with, but she cannot plan her way out of that proverbial paper bag. We live several hours apart, so when we get together, I always have to allow for anything from her showing up hours early, to hours late, to cancelling at the last minute, to showing up with a friend. My low degree of trust is based on her unreliable track record of behavior, not on our personal connection which is fantastic. One reason I enjoy her company so much is that she understands me much more completely than most other people I know.

In terms of the topic of this thread, your elephant instinctively trusts logic, instinctively trusts the rider in just about every case, with only a few exceptions that the rider doesn't know how to handle. This results in a VERY high degree of self control. Your elephant doesn't just go and do rash things without the rider's OK except in very specific and rare cases. The part that you are "missing" that so many other people seem to intuitively understand, is that with that high degree of self control, you don't really trust your instincts (your elephant), and consequently don't hone those instincts.

So it's a tradeoff, like many things. So how do I or others benefit from my honing my instincts more?

In my case, I'm still rather distrustful of people, but instead of using a blanket distrust and adhering to logic, as I did for a long time, I now let myself trust people a little bit, gradually ramping up the trust as they get closer. Why? Because that's what they're trying with me, testing the trust level (the connection level) and ramping it up based on how I interact with them. Most of this happens wordlessly, so applying logic and reason to it is rather difficult. You have to gradually hone your instincts to detect these shades of trust.

Isn't it apparent in how they act? I will usually give new people the benefit of the doubt also, and trust them to some small extent and see how it goes from there. Similarly, I don't expect people to trust me much until I prove my trustworthiness by being as good as my word, honest, etc. I don't know what is so bad about that. Even the con artist can be identified if you focus on his actions rather than his charm and clever words.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Is your quote meant to suggest that you think all values come from external socialization?

No, I'm not suggesting that *all* values come from socialization.

I was just emphasizing the starting point of the process. You originally asked where values *come from*, which suggested to me an emphasis on their origin. It dates back to the earliest years. A lot of that stuff gets imprinted on us practically at our mother's breast. Of course, as adults we modify that info to better fit with our current environment. But even as adults we're often unaware of the degree to which we parrot old scripts learned in childhood. In other words, even as adults a lot of our values can be traced back to the early years.

Anyway, read the article if you want to learn about the socialization process as a whole. It's spelled out pretty clearly there, or at least the various theories on the process. Then look up "Values" in wikipedia for other processes outside of socialization.

 

[uumlau]

To some extent this makes good sense, but there are some things that don't fit in. For instance, there never was a time in my life when people actually did take advantage of me, so I don't have that experience motivating me to avoid such situations in future. In fact, I go out of my way to be helpful to others when I can, I just don't broadcast it. In a similar vein, I always ask for my charitable contributions to be anonymous. I'm not like these folks that want the notoriety, and to have their name appear all sorts of places where they have given money. Second, while my relatives are mostly decent people, I never did feel I could trust most of them, or connect with them to any great degree. Sure, I knew they wouldn't deliberately try to hurt me or be reckless, but many of them were unreliable on a day to day basis, would say one thing to your face and another behind your back, etc.

Actually, this sounds like your family is the source of your distrust.

Now this isn't accurate. I trust people in levels, based on their demonstrated behavior (actions much more than words). My SIL, for example, is one of my favorite people to spend time with, but she cannot plan her way out of that proverbial paper bag. We live several hours apart, so when we get together, I always have to allow for anything from her showing up hours early, to hours late, to cancelling at the last minute, to showing up with a friend. My low degree of trust is based on her unreliable track record of behavior, not on our personal connection which is fantastic. One reason I enjoy her company so much is that she understands me much more completely than most other people I know.

In other words, you trust her a lot, in ways that you don't trust most people. This is the kind of trust and personal connection that I'm talking about. Note that it doesn't matter that she is objectively unreliable, you desire that personal connection enough to put up with all sorts of shit that most INTJs would disdain in order to feel it again.

Part of what I'm getting at is that people are trying to engage degrees of THIS kind of connection with you. Not logistical/tactical trust of executing tasks, but the kind of trust where you slowly come to understand another human being with all their strengths and flaws.

So it's a tradeoff, like many things. So how do I or others benefit from my honing my instincts more?

It's only a trade-off in terms of how much time you spend developing which skills. It's not a trade-off between being analytical vs instinctual. You develop each to different degrees. In your case, you'd probably benefit a lot, since when skills are mostly undeveloped, there's a lot of "low hanging fruit".

The film editing video I posted previous is an example of how you'd use those kinds of instincts.

This is an example of the kinds of skills/understandings that a film editor is taking advantage of:

Isn't it apparent in how they act? I will usually give new people the benefit of the doubt also, and trust them to some small extent and see how it goes from there. Similarly, I don't expect people to trust me much until I prove my trustworthiness by being as good as my word, honest, etc. I don't know what is so bad about that. Even the con artist can be identified if you focus on his actions rather than his charm and clever words.

That's kind of the "work" version of trusting. Executing tasks and such. "Rider A" trusting "Rider B" I'm talking about emotional trust and connection. "Elephant A" trusting "Elephant B". And yes, the emotional trust is evident in how they act, or rather react, as indicated in the video above.

 

[Forever]

[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] great video by the way. Highly recommend. I now understand why people give me the wide eyed look and it scares me lol.

 

[Eilonwy]

So far in my reading, I've discovered that I should consider CBT or Prozac because it seems I was unlucky in the cortical lottery.

Seriously, though, I'm enjoying the read. I'm not far enough in to comment intelligently, though.

 

[uumlau]

So far in my reading, I've discovered that I should consider CBT or Prozac because it seems I was unlucky in the cortical lottery.

Seriously, though, I'm enjoying the read. I'm not far enough in to comment intelligently, though.

Heh.

CBT is actually fairly old now (it was all the rage in 2006 when that book was published), and my INFJ psychologist friend says that there are newer techniques. Unrelated to the CBT topic, she actually uses a lot of the Brene Brown materials in her work.

I'm glad you are enjoying the read. I could only manage like half a chapter per day, because then I'd just sit and stare into space and start thinking about what I'd just read.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

So far in my reading, I've discovered that I should consider CBT or Prozac because it seems I was unlucky in the cortical lottery.

Seriously, though, I'm enjoying the read. I'm not far enough in to comment intelligently, though.

CBT really helped me. I have never tried any medication. My bipolar ENFP sis has been medicated for a decade, but she says the 6 years of CBT has been much more helpful and she hopes to become unmedicated soon.

 

[Eilonwy]

Heh.

CBT is actually fairly old now (it was all the rage in 2006 when that book was published), and my INFJ psychologist friend says that there are newer techniques. Unrelated to the CBT topic, she actually uses a lot of the Brene Brown materials in her work.

I'm glad you are enjoying the read. I could only manage like half a chapter per day, because then I'd just sit and stare into space and start thinking about what I'd just read.

I would be staring into space, too, but he's drawing on a lot of material that I've already spent time staring into space about, so the concepts are familiar (so far).

I'm not sure what method my psychologist has been using, but he has helped me get through a lot. I need to practice what he taught me: mindfulness. And I think meditation would be helpful to me, too. He suggested it, but I haven't found a way to make the elephant want to set aside time yet.

 

[PeaceBaby]

This is an example of the kinds of skills/understandings that a film editor is taking advantage of:

Wow, that video (How to Read Anyone) ... who relates to this? Many of the external tells aren't reflective of what's inside a person at all, not even close. This is like "How to Make Friends and Influence People" -- all superficial outside, no genuine inside. Do this and you can get that. Cause & effect. What's on the outside showing and seeing those patterns has little to do with "reading" a person, unless it's a person who has few filters. I don't read people in this way at all. Fascinating.

eta: it's not reading of patterns that surprises me, it's the strategic nature of this person's approach. And the belief that leads him to think he's actually "reading" what people are thinking or feeling as result. Plus, I can control 90% of my microexpressions for example, and I learned to do this as a defense mechanism from my emotions being belittled by other people - is silly then to use them to read anything.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Wow, that video (How to Read Anyone) ... who relates to this? Many of the external tells aren't reflective of what's inside a person at all, not even close. This is like "How to Make Friends and Influence People" -- all superficial outside, no genuine inside. Do this and you can get that. Cause & effect. What's on the outside showing and seeing those patterns has little to do with "reading" a person, unless it's a person who has few filters. I don't read people in this way at all. Fascinating.

eta: it's not reading of patterns that surprises me, it's the strategic nature of this person's approach. And the belief that leads him to think he's actually "reading" what people are thinking or feeling as result.

That video felt very off putting to me. His style, the artificiality of it all, ugh.

His take feels odd and foreign.

Now, I expect his style could give a decent understanding of others for those not naturally geered to that.

He does reference listening to personal feelings as they change towards others in order to better use one's own feelings to read others.

Micro-expression research has been pretty much validated and universal and that skill can be taught. Micro-expressions do correctly relate to emotions.

So, yes, it seems like creating an artificial feeler for the thinking crowd. That concept is big in the sales field.

So, yes, very superficial, but successful enough for those who just don't have the skill naturally and don't want to do the work necessary to build upon what nature talent they have.

 

[Poki]

Wow, that video (How to Read Anyone) ... who relates to this? Many of the external tells aren't reflective of what's inside a person at all, not even close. This is like "How to Make Friends and Influence People" -- all superficial outside, no genuine inside. Do this and you can get that. Cause & effect. What's on the outside showing and seeing those patterns has little to do with "reading" a person, unless it's a person who has few filters. I don't read people in this way at all. Fascinating.

eta: it's not reading of patterns that surprises me, it's the strategic nature of this person's approach. And the belief that leads him to think he's actually "reading" what people are thinking or feeling as result. Plus, I can control 90% of my microexpressions for example, and I learned to do this as a defense mechanism from my emotions being belittled by other people - is silly then to use them to read anything.

But if you really focus you can actually tell fake micro expressions as well. You have to really know how natural looks though, and how fake looks, and how trying looks and combine with situation, and this all changes by how well you know the person.

Most people suck at reading others, they bring to much of self and project it. It becomes a guess instead of a read.

Ok, so i read lack of interest, but can you read why. Etc. Its a very complicated, gets into use of words, expression, tone and its not aways immediate reads. You notice patterns, not of people, but the person. You can then create a read on not just the immediate of a person, but the overall personality and who they are.

His read is shallow because its nothing but immidiate action. This then that. Very shallow, very quick, action based.

Like getting a read of a book by looking at table of contents and saying you know it all as opposed to reading all the pages.

 

[PeaceBaby]

But if you really focus you can actually tell fake micro expressions as well. You have to really know how natural looks though, and how fake looks, and how trying looks and combine with situation, and this all changes by how well you know the person.

Yes, I hear what you're saying on that, and agree, but there's a part not addressed by your response. And, you'll find a significant percentage of Fi doms saying something similar. It's more like having none at all, surface like glass, cold almost. Almost all things happen on the inside; they're for us, no one else gets to see. I worked with an enneagram coach for a while and she used the same approach of reading microexpressions, but since we were coaching, what benefit would it be to me to conceal them? The thing is, she thought she was awesome for reading them, but in reality, I was letting my guard down enough for them be read. I don't value being so guarded anymore though.

 

[Poki]

Yes, I hear what you're saying on that, and agree, but there's a part not addressed by your response. And, you'll find a significant percentage of Fi doms saying something similar. It's more like having none at all, surface like glass, cold almost. Almost all things happen on the inside; they're for us, no one else gets to see. I worked with an enneagram coach for a while and she used the same approach of reading microexpressions, but since we were coaching, what benefit would it be to me to conceal them? The thing is, she thought she was awesome for reading them, but in reality, I was letting my guard down enough for them be read. I don't value being so guarded anymore though.

I still dont know. I know Fi doms and i have no issues reading them...sounds like a challenge they will never admit it, they usually realize i caught them. They generally dont care because its my knowledge only. Once that happens i usually get purposeful micro expressions. No words exchanged, just a look from them. Its usually when they dont even realize someone even notices them. So no guards are up usually. You know you guys wanna speak, especially when guarded.

 

[Coriolis]

Because they can sense you're holding cards close to the vest. It's a layer that obstructs a particular kind of connection.

Exactly what kind of connection is that? What is wrong with holding cards close to the vest? I suspect everyone does this.

Actually, this sounds like your family is the source of your distrust.

I'm not sure about that. I suspect I would have been naturally distrustful, just would have made more exceptions for family members.

In other words, you trust her a lot, in ways that you don't trust most people. This is the kind of trust and personal connection that I'm talking about. Note that it doesn't matter that she is objectively unreliable, you desire that personal connection enough to put up with all sorts of shit that most INTJs would disdain in order to feel it again.

This is exactly how I view it. I have asked myself now and then if what I get out of the relationship is worth the unpredictability and occasional disappointment associated with it. Some day the answer may be "no", but we have not yet reached that point. So yes, my notion of trust is in fact very granular. I will trust certain people in certain areas and not others, based on past experience with them, but all of those determinations are based on actions - what they really did in specific situations.

Part of what I'm getting at is that people are trying to engage degrees of THIS kind of connection with you. Not logistical/tactical trust of executing tasks, but the kind of trust where you slowly come to understand another human being with all their strengths and flaws.

Do you think it is possible to connect in this manner with anyone, regardless of how different you are in background, interests, values, personality, and other respects?

It's only a trade-off in terms of how much time you spend developing which skills. It's not a trade-off between being analytical vs instinctual. You develop each to different degrees. In your case, you'd probably benefit a lot, since when skills are mostly undeveloped, there's a lot of "low hanging fruit".

I do view it this way, as time and energy that otherwise would be available for other pursuits. Which will yield the best return? None of this explains what there is to be gained by developing these skills, though. The time and effort required must be balanced against the likely gain.

The film editing video I posted previous is an example of how you'd use those kinds of instincts.

This is an example of the kinds of skills/understandings that a film editor is taking advantage of:]

I didn't get much out of the film editing video. I can appreciate the art and importance of good editing, but honestly I couldn't tell much difference between the pairs of scenes edited differently. For that matter, I find it hard to assign an emotion to the sort of brief scenes used as examples. The second video was more useful, especially in the way it discussed pattern recognition, though several folks here have taken issue with the methodology shown. That being said, people often read me wrong, so I'm not sure how universal these external indicators are, and have no reason to think I can read others more accurately than they can read me.

 

[Bush]

What is wrong with holding cards close to the vest? I suspect everyone does this.

It can be seen as an outright refusal to establish trust. Kind of like your interlocutor sticking out a hand and awaiting yours so that the two of you can shake 'em.

Operative words are "can" and "seen." There's nothing inherently wrong with it. At least, I hope not, since I err on the side of cards-to-vest as well. I'd rather demonstrate trustworthiness by, you know, actually being trustworthy -- and by demonstrating trustworthiness in ways that actually matter to the both of us.

Everyone does it to some degree (and that degree is almost always topic- and situation-dependent). In fact, it can totally work the other way, too. Requests could be read as -- "If you haven't done anything wrong, why would you worry about whipping up a 127-page autobiography wherein you spill all of your intimate details? All I want to do is read it off through a megaphone in a crowded city park!!"


(Maybe I should read the thread, though)

 

[uumlau]

Speaking of holding cards ...

Annie Duke ends up mentioning a lot of the themes that Haidt is getting at. I previously mentioned reciprocity, but the other key thing that Haidt points out about the human mind in order to understand it is that we are all hypocrites. We all lie to ourselves, we think of ourselves and our opinions in a good light, and so on. We are not naturally objective, even (and in my opinion especially) when we think we're being objective. Duke offers some ways of being able to spot that lack of objectivity in ourselves and take it into account.

 

[Eilonwy]

I like this paraphrase from the book and had to quote it:

I saw the right way and approved it, but followed the wrong, until an emotion came along to provide some force.

 

[Eilonwy]

Haidt's take on morality and the teaching of virtues is interesting. There's always a question of balance.