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

[Coriolis]

Essentially, Damasio's study of people with a particular kind of brain damage. The damage inhibited their ability to experience emotions, and consequently inhibited their ability to make decisions. In other words, in order to make decisions, you have to feel emotions. If you think you are making decisions entirely objectively, in the absence of emotion, you are wrong. There is always an underlying emotion. It's just easy to ignore that emotion, for example, if the emotion is comprised of liking "reasonable logic".

How exactly does this work, and where do values fit into the process? I think in terms of values quite often, and dig down through them to find and examine even more fundamental values. Where and how does emotion as the actual immediate sensation (as opposed to feeling as a function) come into play?

There are some interesting implications that arise from its being a built-in process. First of all, even if you think you are "above it all", no you aren't. You will always naturally resent people who mistreat you and - no matter how much you believe in loving your enemies or turning the other cheek - you will naturally tend to mistreat them in return. Likewise, it means that doing wrong by others - or even APPEARING to do wrong by others - will exact a heavy social cost. On the positive side, it means that generosity and benevolence will usually be rewarded, because others will instinctively reward it. It also weighs heavily in the concepts of condemnation of liars and cheats: people who promise reciprocity, but renege. I suspect it would also be fair to say that it has a lot to do with that cathartic feeling one gets when watching a movie and the protagonist beats up people who deserve to get beat up.

About the highlighted: I agree with the first part, and observe it in myself, but don't think the second part is so inevitable. If I perceive that someone has wronged me, I often will feel resentment in the moment. Before I react, though, I examine the situation. What would I have wanted the person to do instead? What would I like to see happen now that the wrong has been committed? Oftentimes the outcome is not so different from what I would have done myself, in which case I leave it alone. Otherwise, I will confront the person and ask for an explanation and/or correction. I am very good at not allowing the resentful feeling to translate into actual mistreatment as you describe. In fact, I have had coworkers and supervisors remark on this. Is there something I am missing, or is it simply that I have learned to do this with this particular emotion, but perhaps not others?

 

[uumlau]

How exactly does this work, and where do values fit into the process? I think in terms of values quite often, and dig down through them to find and examine even more fundamental values. Where and how does emotion as the actual immediate sensation (as opposed to feeling as a function) come into play?

You have values that you cannot express in words. In general, it is possible to present someone with an issue where they'll agree that logically, their natural response makes no sense, but they feel compelled to go with the natural response in spite of that. This is easiest with ideas/tasks that one finds "repulsive".

About the highlighted: I agree with the first part, and observe it in myself, but don't think the second part is so inevitable.

Not inevitable, but there is a definite "tends to". Sometimes you catch yourself. Sometimes you don't.

If I perceive that someone has wronged me, I often will feel resentment in the moment. Before I react, though, I examine the situation. What would I have wanted the person to do instead? What would I like to see happen now that the wrong has been committed? Oftentimes the outcome is not so different from what I would have done myself, in which case I leave it alone. Otherwise, I will confront the person and ask for an explanation and/or correction. I am very good at not allowing the resentful feeling to translate into actual mistreatment as you describe. In fact, I have had coworkers and supervisors remark on this. Is there something I am missing, or is it simply that I have learned to do this with this particular emotion, but perhaps not others?

What can happen is that resentment will take you by surprise, and you'll react to it and mistreat someone before you even realize that you had a reaction. In other words, we all have "knee jerk reactions". Many people have a lot fewer, being very reserved and disinclined to react at all, but they still exist.

That was what I learned based on being a 9. While I was conscious of all sorts of anger and abated my reactions to all sorts of anger, there remained issues that would still make me angry, where if I didn't acknowledge the anger, I could unknowingly strike out at those I love (in a classic 9 passive aggressive way). Even now that I am more aware - I am aware that I can still be taken unawares by my emotions, even and especially when I might feel that I am being extremely impartial. Therefore I need to be aware enough that I DO end up making a mistake and acting rashly, and admit it up front, rather than deny it because I "never" act rashly.

Another way of looking at it: it is easiest to push the buttons of those who don't believe that they have any buttons to be pushed. If you are human, you have buttons, they will be pushed, and you will react. SOMETIMES you can catch yourself before you do anything too bad, but as often as not, you won't, and therefore need to own up to it and not feign objectivity or impartiality.

 

[Coriolis]

You have values that you cannot express in words. In general, it is possible to present someone with an issue where they'll agree that logically, their natural response makes no sense, but they feel compelled to go with the natural response in spite of that. This is easiest with ideas/tasks that one finds "repulsive".

How is that a value? It sounds simply like a sensation, the only value being "make it go away" if it is a bad sensation, much as one tries to avoid physical pain simply because it feels bad.

What can happen is that resentment will take you by surprise, and you'll react to it and mistreat someone before you even realize that you had a reaction. In other words, we all have "knee jerk reactions". Many people have a lot fewer, being very reserved and disinclined to react at all, but they still exist.

Yes, I still do get taken by surprise by resentment. I will realize I resent something, have no immediate idea why, and have to think about it to figure it out. I am definitely one of those people with fewer kneejerk reactions, though. If anything, the kneejerk reaction is to stop and figure it out, because I know I cannot trust my immediate reaction. It is in my nature to be deliberate about things to begin with, which on its own will give me some breathing room. I have worked on this specifically throughout my life though as well, and it has served me in good stead.

Another way of looking at it: it is easiest to push the buttons of those who don't believe that they have any buttons to be pushed. If you are human, you have buttons, they will be pushed, and you will react. SOMETIMES you can catch yourself before you do anything too bad, but as often as not, you won't, and therefore need to own up to it and not feign objectivity or impartiality.

I think I am most susceptible to this in what I say to people close to me. I relax the filtering, feeling I am "among friends" where I can be more uninhibited, and perhaps more likely to be forgiven or at least understood if I overstep. So, if something annoys or offends me, or on the other hand makes me happy or excited, I am much more likely to blurt it out.

 

[uumlau]

How is that a value? It sounds simply like a sensation, the only value being "make it go away" if it is a bad sensation, much as one tries to avoid physical pain simply because it feels bad.

Where do you think values come from in the first place?

If your physical body is the hardware, your values/morality is the firmware, and your conscious mind is the software. Only the last part is the "rider" of the analogy. The other two comprise the "elephant". If analogizing to Enneagram, your physical body is the "gut", your values/morality is the "heart" and your conscious mind is the "head".

Yes, I still do get taken by surprise by resentment. I will realize I resent something, have no immediate idea why, and have to think about it to figure it out. I am definitely one of those people with fewer kneejerk reactions, though. If anything, the kneejerk reaction is to stop and figure it out, because I know I cannot trust my immediate reaction. It is in my nature to be deliberate about things to begin with, which on its own will give me some breathing room. I have worked on this specifically throughout my life though as well, and it has served me in good stead.

I see this in you. There is a very old D&D joke story about the ability scores.

If you have high strength, you can punch your way out of a paper bag.
If you have high dexterity, you can wiggle your way out of a paper bag.
If you have high constitution, you can wait until the paper bag disintegrates around you.
If you have high intelligence, you can think your way out of a paper bag.
If you have high charisma, you can charm your way out of a paper bag.
But if you have high wisdom, you never got into the paper bag in the first place!

I very much see you as the kind of person who instinctively avoids paper bags.

But life is full of paper bags, and we still stumble into some of them, in spite of our best efforts.

I think I am most susceptible to this in what I say to people close to me. I relax the filtering, feeling I am "among friends" where I can be more uninhibited, and perhaps more likely to be forgiven or at least understood if I overstep. So, if something annoys or offends me, or on the other hand makes me happy or excited, I am much more likely to blurt it out.

Yep!

Part of what Haidt is getting at is to understand this side of yourself. This is your "elephant". It's OK to blurt it out, sometimes. Sometimes your instinctive heart/gut response is exactly what is appropriate.

 

[Coriolis]

Part of what Haidt is getting at is to understand this side of yourself. This is your "elephant". It's OK to blurt it out, sometimes. Sometimes your instinctive heart/gut response is exactly what is appropriate.

Sometimes I conclude that it is indeed in my best interests to do exactly that. Sometimes I realize in hindsight that I should have done so. Yes, over-filtering is a thing, too.

I am just about halfway through this book. Will probably post more when I am finished.

 

[uumlau]

Sometimes I conclude that it is indeed in my best interests to do exactly that. Sometimes I realize in hindsight that I should have done so. Yes, over-filtering is a thing, too.

I am just about halfway through this book. Will probably post more when I am finished.

Yep, overfiltering. Been there, done that.

Last night I was practicing dance with a friend, and she noted how I had a "soft, gentle" teaching style. 20-30 years ago, no one would have said that; most commentary that I received was that I was kind of intimidating. The filtering is intimidating because we do it to protect ourselves. It's kind of a defense mechanism, and it keeps other people from connecting with us.

Don't get me wrong. I can still be intimidating. I just try to make sure that I am only so on purpose. And yes, I filter and purposefully do not react to achieve the effect. (And I can still be accidentally intimidating. It usually happens when *I* am scared, somehow. )

How did I learn this? Because new dancers are usually scared to death. When they're that scared, they don't dance very well - not because they're new, but because they'll naturally hesitate and just not get into the dancing mood. I gradually learned a style of "talking them down", which generally involves saying calming things, distracting them from their anxiety, and pretty much saying anything EXCEPT "just calm down!" I tell stories of how scared I was when I started. I distract them enough that they aren't thinking, then I lead them through a few moves and say, "I bet you didn't know you could do that, eh?"

After reading Haidt's book, I kind of think of what I do in dancing as letting my elephant talk directly with their elephant. It's about establishing an emotional/gut-based level of trust, and once that trust exists, the other person's fear diminishes. You can't do this by stating facts or analyzing things. There is nothing to factually prove: the fear is already known to be irrational, and proving it to be irrational doesn't get rid of it.

But if I had my youthful filters up, I'd be too intimidating, and very few people would enjoy dancing with me: they'd feel like every move that they "couldn't do right" reflected badly on them and they'd rather avoid the interaction than endure the ongoing feelings of embarrassment.

 

[Coriolis]

Yep, overfiltering. Been there, done that.

Last night I was practicing dance with a friend, and she noted how I had a "soft, gentle" teaching style. 20-30 years ago, no one would have said that; most commentary that I received was that I was kind of intimidating. The filtering is intimidating because we do it to protect ourselves. It's kind of a defense mechanism, and it keeps other people from connecting with us.

Don't get me wrong. I can still be intimidating. I just try to make sure that I am only so on purpose. And yes, I filter and purposefully do not react to achieve the effect. (And I can still be accidentally intimidating. It usually happens when *I* am scared, somehow. )

How did I learn this? Because new dancers are usually scared to death. When they're that scared, they don't dance very well - not because they're new, but because they'll naturally hesitate and just not get into the dancing mood. I gradually learned a style of "talking them down", which generally involves saying calming things, distracting them from their anxiety, and pretty much saying anything EXCEPT "just calm down!" I tell stories of how scared I was when I started. I distract them enough that they aren't thinking, then I lead them through a few moves and say, "I bet you didn't know you could do that, eh?"

After reading Haidt's book, I kind of think of what I do in dancing as letting my elephant talk directly with their elephant. It's about establishing an emotional/gut-based level of trust, and once that trust exists, the other person's fear diminishes. You can't do this by stating facts or analyzing things. There is nothing to factually prove: the fear is already known to be irrational, and proving it to be irrational doesn't get rid of it.

But if I had my youthful filters up, I'd be too intimidating, and very few people would enjoy dancing with me: they'd feel like every move that they "couldn't do right" reflected badly on them and they'd rather avoid the interaction than endure the ongoing feelings of embarrassment.

Do you not find, though, that the filters also help you to avoid inadvertently hurting someone's feelings, or even burning bridges you might want later? I understand that, however upset I am with someone in the moment, I will/may still have to work with them tomorrow, or depend on them for something later. Deliberately attuning my responses to this reality has proved beneficial. But then I don't find myself in situations like your dance group, where I have to put people at ease in this way for them to function. TBH, though, I really don't know whether I intimidate people. They certainly don't tell me that I do.

 

[uumlau]

Do you not find, though, that the filters also help you to avoid inadvertently hurting someone's feelings, or even burning bridges you might want later? I understand that, however upset I am with someone in the moment, I will/may still have to work with them tomorrow, or depend on them for something later. Deliberately attuning my responses to this reality has proved beneficial.

It's better than the alternative, yes. But those who are emotionally attuned are going to see your anger anyway. Sometimes people need to see that you are upset, but that you are not upset with them. Also, by sharing your being upset, you build a connection. As long as it isn't incessant complaining, sharing helps people identify with your concerns. And if you ARE upset with them, well, sometimes that's important social feedback, too.

But then I don't find myself in situations like your dance group, where I have to put people at ease in this way for them to function. TBH, though, I really don't know whether I intimidate people. They certainly don't tell me that I do.

They generally will NOT tell you. I can think of a handful of times the sentiment was expressed.

Based on our long conversations, though, I would guess that you do intimidate a lot of people. Not in a mean way, but in a "doesn't suffer fools gladly" way. You generally put things on a clinical level, analyzing them in your usual precise manner, and that generally will rebuff any attempts at connecting with you. Without the connection, all that is left is intimidation, because people need a connection in order to know where they stand with you. Why? Because too many people lie with words, so words without a personal connection are not easily trusted. All the logical words in the world will not persuade anyone who doesn't already connect with you.

--------------------------------

The following is more "in general" and not really in reply to your post. I'd make it a separate post but it's easier to type this sentence than go through the effort of splitting this into two posts.

Haidt covers the effectiveness of logic this when he talks about how the "rider" works. The rider is the part of your mind that applies all the rational logic, but the rider is NOT objective. The rider is your "lawyer", rationalizing your actions to yourself and others. You might even regard the rider as the elephant's lawyer. There exist feedback mechanisms that help people be objective, but without those, people will generally use logic and reason in a self-serving way. This is how you can get two very smart people who understand logic perfectly well disagreeing with each other on opposite sides of the political spectrum: they operate from very different moral premises. That's why you need to establish a personal connection for your words to work, as a way of saying, "Look, I'm on your side." As long as you have that trust, then your logic will be persuasive.

This is how Trump won the primaries. He didn't even need logic. Instead, he connected with people and their needs and concerns, saying that he's on their side. He phrases things in terms of "us" and "them", talking about how China is working against us, how Mexico is stealing our jobs, and so on. The other candidates in the field had various flavors of conservative ideologies, but that got them nowhere. Trump said, essentially, f-ck ideology, I'm on your side and I'm going to make things better. That's what people needed to hear in order to extend their trust. Yes, it's totally irrational, but that's how our minds work.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Do you not find, though, that the filters also help you to avoid inadvertently hurting someone's feelings, or even burning bridges you might want later? [...]

Naturally you have to keep the expression of any emotion in the realm of what's "appropriate." If you feel attracted to a new acquaintance, you can't go up and dry-hump their leg. So you flirt and indicate attraction more appropriately. If you envy someone's new car, you don't steal it from them. You express admiration and maybe finagle a ride.

That's not overfiltering. That's "keeping things socially appropriate."

Same with anger. You keep it socially appropriate by sitting down in solitude and figuring out what's bugging you exactly. You then frame an appropriate request for change, and then you sit down with the other party as two articulate adults and negotiate how exactly that change will take place.

If you're a boss in the workplace with a misbehaving subordinate, there will be appropriate protocols in place for counseling that subordinate somewhat similar to the above, albeit without so much negotiation (since you're in a position to dictate change).

Anyway, the point is: You don't just stuff your anger down inside and ignore it. Nor do you turn it up to blast and let the other person bear the brunt. You use it as a starting place, a signal that you need to sit down in solitude and inventory the relationship, work out an initial negotiating position, and from there you negotiate with the other party. To the extent that you feel you've truly identified the cause of your anger, the anger will abate as you develop a course of action forward. To the extent that you're largely unaware of the source of your anger (you're experiencing a diffuse dissatisfaction that's difficult to pin down), then it may take a bit of introspection before you truly get a handle on what's bothering you. But you'll know you're getting it when you formulate a plan for handling what's bothering you and the anger abates.

I don't know if this is what you were talking about in the above quote. But the take-away point is this. The emotion is a signal. From that, as a mature adult, you work out a socially-appropriate course of action to address the source of that emotion.

 

[Poki]

Agree, overfiltering results in rationalization and a downward spiral. For example when my mom gets mad she fumes, and talks to herself, and just internalizes it and over filters it to the point where it just builds up internally and doesnt make it out. Like throwing a filter with a tiny hole in. To much filter. The opposite is an ESTJ i know that speaks without thought or concern. No filter. He has called his daughter "wide load" and thinks its hilarious.

When you find the correct filter you are better able to navigate life. The kicker is that every person requires a different filter. We all have our issues. So we can choose some stereotypical filters used across the board and aim for the highest percent possible to not offend. People try this alot and vet frustrated with results. I have said things to my GF that a counselor woupd say..never say that to a woman. But i know her and i have fine tuned my filters to balance what i am after and who she is.

When you get into the realm of personal there is no "this is how things are". Its interesting that people try to create a single path instead of constantly building multiple paths. I realize its confusing, its complicated, its time consuming, and its never ends. But at least recognize it so you can ask questions and not assume. Or even if you assume, know that you just pushed a possibility and not a fact.

The best way to understand people in my honest opinion is to recognize there is alot of overlap, but exactly what that overlap is, is not static. Its all based on statistics which is nothing more then possibility and chance.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

[...] When you find the correct filter you are better able to navigate life. The kicker is that every person requires a different filter. We all have our issues. So we can choose some stereotypical filters used across the board and aim for the highest percent possible to not offend. People try this alot and vet frustrated with results. I have said things to my GF that a counselor woupd say..never say that to a woman. But i know her and i have fine tuned my filters to balance what i am after and who she is.

When you get into the realm of personal there is no "this is how things are". Its interesting that people try to create a single path instead of constantly building multiple paths. I realize its confusing, its complicated, its time consuming, and its never ends. But at least recognize it so you can ask questions and not assume. Or even if you assume, know that you just pushed a possibility and not a fact.

The best way to understand people in my honest opinion is to recognize there is alot of overlap, but exactly what that overlap is, is not static. Its all based on statistics which is nothing more then possibility and chance.

Yes, I agree with everything you said here. Basically, this portion of your post deals with the negotiation process, and I kind of blew that off in my previous post. My previous post was mostly about the part that happens before one gets to the negotiation table. But I agree with the points you raised: The negotiation process has pitfalls of its own.

Putting it all together:

*My* post was about moving from anger to the negotiation table. That is:

--Do a self-inventory of why you're upset.
--Figure out which issues you want/need to raise with the other party.
--Decide on an initial negotiating position
--And then finally confront the other person and actually begin negotiations. And then I kind of blew off the actual negotiation process by saying, "then you sit down with the other party as two articulate adults and negotiate how exactly that change will take place."

Anyway, to put it in the language of the thread: *My* post (moving from anger to the negotiation table) is about the rider getting in touch with his inner elephant: The rider knows that his inner elephant is stirred up (the rider feels anger bubbling around), so he has to sit with the elephant a bit in order to understand where the anger is coming from, figure out what needs are not being met, and then decide how to discuss those needs with the other party.

After all that happens, then we get to the negotiation process, which is actually a fairly huge process and is fraught with pitfalls and miscommunications. The negotiation process is ideally a "rider" process, but often the "elephants" of both parties end up getting involved. The "elephants" may prove divisive when the parties turn out to have clashing values or "languages." Or the elephants may help smooth the way when values and languages are shared.

Anyway, concerning the pitfalls of the negotiation process, just a couple examples:

Let's say you're trying to work out a difference of opinions with a spouse.

--The spouse may simply refuse to negotiate or communicate. They may say something like, "I shouldn't have to spell these things out for you. If you really loved me, you would pay attention to me and just automatically know what I need from you."

--The spouse may reject the idea of turning the relationship into a series of negotiations: "Love isn't a quid pro quo. We shouldn't have to give something in order to get something. Our love for each other should be given and received freely without a lot of haggling and bartering."

--The spouse may muddy the water and pull in a lot of related issues and turn the issue into a unsolvable tangle of contentious issues and demand solutions for everything at once. Or they may dwell on incidentals, like "I don't mind what you said, but I don't like the tone of voice you used when you said it."

And so on. And even after a deal is worked out, one party or another may backslide and not hold up their end of the bargain.

These things may happen without any ill will involved; it may just be that the spouses have different values and different "love languages." Or maybe one or both are narcissists and just want to tangle things up so that no progress can be made, in the interests of maintaining a privileged position in the relationship. Time will tell which is the issue.

In any case, there are some tools one can use to facilitate the negotiation process.

1) Common-knowledge self-help tools

There are some traditional self-help tools for dealing with misunderstandings. The most familiar: When you want to negotiate a problem, use the formula "When you do X, I feel Y."

The downside of that formula is that it's kind of a guilt trip. It says, "You're responsible for my feelings, and it's up to you to make me feel good by changing your ways."

But the upside of the formula is that it sets up a successful negotiation process. It clears away any other old baggage and other old arguments and puts them off to the side. It says, "I just want to focus on this one simple interaction that's bugging me; is there some way we could interact differently?" It gets rid of the "muddying the water problem" and boils the process down to two clearly defined elements.

It's like going into a car dealership and saying, "I have money and you have cars. Let's do a deal. I don't care what your politics are; I don't even care if I like you or hate you. It's just about about money and cars. So let's do a deal."

So simple self-help tools can be an aid by getting the parties past sloppy thinking and helping to clarify and crystallize exactly what needs to be negotiated.

2) Deeper study of the negotiation process

There are a gazillion books on how to manage conflict and negotiate. Negotiation is the cornerstone of capitalism. Donald Trump put out a book entitled, "The Art of the Deal." (I haven't read it, but I intend to someday. Like him or hate him, there's no denying that he knows the business world and business negotiations better than most.)

Anyway, one of the best overall guides on negotiation styles that I've seen so far is in Chapter 4 of "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen R. Covey. He identifies a number of different argumentation styles: Win/Win, Win/Lose, Lose/Win, Lose/Lose, Win, and No Deal. He describes each and notes that they all have their legitimate uses, depending on the kind of negotiation underway. But he says that in personal relations, usually the best two are Win/Win and No Deal.

I won't bother going into the details. Basically I'm just pointing out that these things have been analyzed and described, and tools exist for handling the process. For example, if your partner or spouse consistently uses a Win/Lose argumentation style, you can point that out with the help of one of these books and insist that it's not fair that every domestic disagreement be turned into a zero-sum, winner-take-all slugfest.

By studying more about the process of negotiation, you (and your partner as well) can become more effective at moving through the negotiation process quickly and "getting a deal done" that you can both live with.

3) Relationship counselor

If things are really in a tangle, you call in a pro. Ideally the pro is familiar with all the issues and material I've raised, and they can spot areas of compromise or can act as a tiebreaker when compromise is impossible. If one spouse wants to work out a quid pro quo and the other partner doesn't believe in quid pro quos in love (difference in love languages), hopefully the counselor can spot that and either work out a compromise language or persuade one or both partners to bend a bit on important issues.

A counselor can clarify contentious issues, create "safe zones" where the parties can express their needs, and point out when the water is getting muddied and the parties need to focus their arguments better. The counselor should also be educating the parties on good negotiation techniques.

Finally, the counselor should also be able to spot narcissists and abusers who just use the negotiation tools to tangle things up and impede process toward a fair outcome. They can point out ways that the parties may be unintentionally or intentionally sabotaging the negotiation process.

 

[Coriolis]

Where do you think values come from in the first place?

If your physical body is the hardware, your values/morality is the firmware, and your conscious mind is the software. Only the last part is the "rider" of the analogy. The other two comprise the "elephant". If analogizing to Enneagram, your physical body is the "gut", your values/morality is the "heart" and your conscious mind is the "head".

Were DO values come from? Just our physical sensations? That seems too simplistic, and more related to things like survival instinct and satisfying our basic needs (food, water, shelter, etc.) I understand very much how I might absolutely not feel like doing something that I accept as logically necessary. I wouldn't call that feeling of disinclination a value, though. It's more like the pain one accepts as a by-product of a necessary medical procedure. It's just pain - a raw feeling of hurt or extreme unpleasantness. I suppose one might say that the related value is to avoid pain. If so, then we are balancing one expressable value (it is good to avoid pain) with another (taking care of your health is important) and giving priority to the second.

It's better than the alternative, yes. But those who are emotionally attuned are going to see your anger anyway. Sometimes people need to see that you are upset, but that you are not upset with them. Also, by sharing your being upset, you build a connection. As long as it isn't incessant complaining, sharing helps people identify with your concerns. And if you ARE upset with them, well, sometimes that's important social feedback, too.

They generally will NOT tell you. I can think of a handful of times the sentiment was expressed.

Based on our long conversations, though, I would guess that you do intimidate a lot of people. Not in a mean way, but in a "doesn't suffer fools gladly" way. You generally put things on a clinical level, analyzing them in your usual precise manner, and that generally will rebuff any attempts at connecting with you. Without the connection, all that is left is intimidation, because people need a connection in order to know where they stand with you. Why? Because too many people lie with words, so words without a personal connection are not easily trusted. All the logical words in the world will not persuade anyone who doesn't already connect with you.

I don't entirely agree. It depends on the idea. More to the point, though, it is best to judge by actions. 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?

Haidt covers the effectiveness of logic this when he talks about how the "rider" works. The rider is the part of your mind that applies all the rational logic, but the rider is NOT objective. The rider is your "lawyer", rationalizing your actions to yourself and others. You might even regard the rider as the elephant's lawyer. There exist feedback mechanisms that help people be objective, but without those, people will generally use logic and reason in a self-serving way. This is how you can get two very smart people who understand logic perfectly well disagreeing with each other on opposite sides of the political spectrum: they operate from very different moral premises. That's why you need to establish a personal connection for your words to work, as a way of saying, "Look, I'm on your side." As long as you have that trust, then your logic will be persuasive

What do you see as some of these feedback mechanisms (or does the book get to that later)?

Same with anger. You keep it socially appropriate by sitting down in solitude and figuring out what's bugging you exactly. You then frame an appropriate request for change, and then you sit down with the other party as two articulate adults and negotiate how exactly that change will take place.

If you're a boss in the workplace with a misbehaving subordinate, there will be appropriate protocols in place for counseling that subordinate somewhat similar to the above, albeit without so much negotiation (since you're in a position to dictate change).

Anyway, the point is: You don't just stuff your anger down inside and ignore it. Nor do you turn it up to blast and let the other person bear the brunt. You use it as a starting place, a signal that you need to sit down in solitude and inventory the relationship, work out an initial negotiating position, and from there you negotiate with the other party. To the extent that you feel you've truly identified the cause of your anger, the anger will abate as you develop a course of action forward. To the extent that you're largely unaware of the source of your anger (you're experiencing a diffuse dissatisfaction that's difficult to pin down), then it may take a bit of introspection before you truly get a handle on what's bothering you. But you'll know you're getting it when you formulate a plan for handling what's bothering you and the anger abates.

I don't know if this is what you were talking about in the above quote. But the take-away point is this. The emotion is a signal. From that, as a mature adult, you work out a socially-appropriate course of action to address the source of that emotion.

The highlighted is exactly what I am talking about. It is my usual practice to consider my initial reaction to situations and determine what is the most appropriate response. One can disagree with the option I choose in this or that situation, but I do in fact make a deliberate choice most of the time, reconciling what I am feeling with what is in my and (hopefully also) others' best interests. And you are exactly right about the emotion largely abating once its root has been identified and a plan formulated. I do take emotions primarily as signals indicating something needs attention.

 

[uumlau]

Were DO values come from? Just our physical sensations? That seems too simplistic, and more related to things like survival instinct and satisfying our basic needs (food, water, shelter, etc.) I understand very much how I might absolutely not feel like doing something that I accept as logically necessary. I wouldn't call that feeling of disinclination a value, though. It's more like the pain one accepts as a by-product of a necessary medical procedure. It's just pain - a raw feeling of hurt or extreme unpleasantness. I suppose one might say that the related value is to avoid pain. If so, then we are balancing one expressable value (it is good to avoid pain) with another (taking care of your health is important) and giving priority to the second.

The second book gets into it much more than the first. The main thing to keep in mind is that they're very much ingrained. They're partly cultural, yes, but the cultural aspects really just fine-tune and focus tendencies that are already there.

One thing to keep in mind is that according to Haidt's thesis about how morals evolve, the typical Kantian approach of trying to "logic" out values from general principles is really just one very particular approach to morality, and that most morality is not comprised of Kantian ethics, even in Western societies where the Kantian style of ethics predominates. Aristotle's ethics are much closer to what Haidt observes, and David Hume's assessment of what motivates people is perhaps the closest. In general, a psychological assessment of morality isn't going to conclude that certain behaviors are intrinsically good, but rather that people engage in certain behaviors because they're intrinsically advantageous, and that these advantageous behaviors evolved by selection, because the disadvantageous behaviors were more likely to fail.

I don't entirely agree. It depends on the idea. More to the point, though, it is best to judge by actions. 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't trust that you'll be there for them when you need them. Your very closest family/friends perhaps do, due to years of association. But as long as you maintain a dry, logical exterior, you're about as trustworthy as a traffic light: people will always rely on your obvious signals red for stop and green for go: the actions are extremely reliable, but you'd not expect the traffic light to do you any special favors.

I don't want to be insulting here, but the analogy is coming out that way because I have to answer the question "Why isn't all of that enough?" and the answer to that question is in how people will perceive certain attitudes. It's not a reflection of you personally, but their reaction to what they think they see in you. Without forming the bonds that people expect to be formed, people are limited in how much trust they can extend.

What do you see as some of these feedback mechanisms (or does the book get to that later)?

The second book gets into the feedback mechanisms in great detail - enough detail to explain some of the great moral divides of modern times. I think it'd be better for you to read about them first before I delve into my speculations.

 

[Coriolis]

Because they can't trust that you'll be there for them when you need them. Your very closest family/friends perhaps do, due to years of association. But as long as you maintain a dry, logical exterior, you're about as trustworthy as a traffic light: people will always rely on your obvious signals red for stop and green for go: the actions are extremely reliable, but you'd not expect the traffic light to do you any special favors.

I don't want to be insulting here, but the analogy is coming out that way because I have to answer the question "Why isn't all of that enough?" and the answer to that question is in how people will perceive certain attitudes. It's not a reflection of you personally, but their reaction to what they think they see in you. Without forming the bonds that people expect to be formed, people are limited in how much trust they can extend.

That is an interesting observation, and not at all insulting. I am inclined to add "unless you ask the traffic light to do you a favor", because I am usually fairly responsive to such requests from people I know even just a little. BUT I tend not to broadcast that I do that, and prefer it stay between me and the person I have helped, so this aspect of my nature does not become common knowledge.

In any case, I tend to mistrust what you are calling a personal connection - I suppose I'm not exactly sure what you mean by it. If it's just "getting a good feeling" about someone, I wouldn't trust something like that because it is too easy to fake, and I don't trust myself to see through a fake. That is the skill of the con artist, or the longtime or serial cheater in a relationship, and there are altogether too many of them in the world.

The second book gets into the feedback mechanisms in great detail - enough detail to explain some of the great moral divides of modern times. I think it'd be better for you to read about them first before I delve into my speculations.

Fair enough, though it might be some time before I can get to it, judging by how long it is taking me to get through the first.

 

[grey_beard]

[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] -- I don't have time to read this: I will wistfully *think* about reading these books, for the next two or three weeks, until my mind gets distracted by other shiny objects.
Thanks, all the same, though, for posting this.

 

[Zangetshumody]

I haven't read the books, but it does seem a rather interesting model:

Depending on how well the features are embellished I have 3 possible comments which are contingently pertinent;- depending on the contents of those books which I haven't read...

1) There could very well be some people with personality styles who do not suffer from aberrant or inconsistent/mysterious elephant behaviors. There could be some small segment who have more evenly distributed symptoms of neurosis in their articulation of character (depending on the exact contents ascribed between the rider/elephant dichotomy... as some people might simply not suffer from any such dichotomy [and I'm not referring to the special breed of enlightened, I'm referring to this metric,— simply not being a universal metric of psychological description of internal dynamic (even among the ""neuro-typical"")]).

2) In-keeping with 1), some personality styles might actually suffer from a schismatic "rider" plagued with non-sequitur temperaments, while the elephant is wholly disquieted by the ineffectual influence brought upon it, while conservatively trying to channel the rider for its necessary capacities while failing to reliably enlist it against the rider's senseless and impulsive inconsistency...

Depending on how I translate the elephant/rider dichotomy into my own theory and model of mind, brings me to various and differing points of insight and contention.

I will just comment on one of the more [generally—]accessible insights:
3)
The rider exists as a sort of shadow that's projecting unconsciousness onto the elephant's internal dynamic: the Rider needs to be regarded as the interloper and nexus of schism, and must find a self-settled role after it can be sublimated into an integrated sense of the Elephants' myriad faculties,— cohesion in a single contiguous system for an organised self— is the way of finding that 'light' which Plato ascribed to the leaning towards the ascension, found through a characteristic of 'acclimated reason-ability'.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Were DO values come from? [...]

My bolding, below.

Socialization, also spelled socialisation, is a term used by sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists, and educationalists to refer to the lifelong process of inheriting and disseminating norms, customs, values and ideologies, providing an individual with the skills and habits necessary for participating within their own society. Socialization is thus "the means by which social and cultural continuity are attained".

[...]

Socialization is the process by which human infants begin to acquire the skills necessary to perform as a functioning member of their society, and is the most influential learning process one can experience. [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization

 

[Tennessee Jed]

[...]In any case, I tend to mistrust what you are calling a personal connection - I suppose I'm not exactly sure what you mean by it. If it's just "getting a good feeling" about someone, I wouldn't trust something like that because it is too easy to fake, and I don't trust myself to see through a fake. That is the skill of the con artist, or the longtime or serial cheater in a relationship, and there are altogether too many of them in the world. [...]

I don't know if the above issue continues to be an ongoing or current concern of yours. But just for the heck of it, here are some old posts on the subject of spotting con artists and abusers.

The following post concerns advice from a self-help book on exactly that subject. If the material looks promising, then read the book; the author goes into the material at length.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/support-and-advice/68918-emotional-abuse-5.html#post2270787

And the following entire thread has suggestions for deciding whether your partner in a relationship is a loser and should be jettisoned. Read it through to the end; I put in an important qualifier right at the end of the thread.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/relationships/78514-break.html

 

[uumlau]

That is an interesting observation, and not at all insulting. I am inclined to add "unless you ask the traffic light to do you a favor", because I am usually fairly responsive to such requests from people I know even just a little. BUT I tend not to broadcast that I do that, and prefer it stay between me and the person I have helped, so this aspect of my nature does not become common knowledge.

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

In any case, I tend to mistrust what you are calling a personal connection - I suppose I'm not exactly sure what you mean by it. If it's just "getting a good feeling" about someone, I wouldn't trust something like that because it is too easy to fake, and I don't trust myself to see through a fake. That is the skill of the con artist, or the longtime or serial cheater in a relationship, and there are altogether too many of them in the world.

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. On top of that, there were no books or courses that really talk about this stuff, though youtube and FB and other sources are quickly filling that gap with helpful (and not so helpful - see this link I stole from the Random Thought Thread that satirizes the genre: https://www.facebook.com/SimtemOfficial/videos/1130856496936329/ ) advice.

A "personal connection" is what you have with the very closest people in your life. You already trust that. Based on what I've gradually learned over the years, the part you are missing is is the part that INFJs seem to intuitively understand from the get-go: connection isn't a switch, it's a dial. When the dial is close to neutral, that's your normal everyday human connection where you treat other people with respect and honor simple basic requests and courtesies. The dial is set more negative for people who have demonstrated abusive tendencies (I'm using "abusive" broadly, from mildly abusing your trust to literal damaging abuse, and so on). The dial is set more positive for people where reciprocity is strong and you just naturally do good things for each other without having to ask or worry about being taken advantage of. And there are an infinite number of degrees in between all of these.

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.)

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. Most people, because they don't hew so closely to logic and reason, do hone those instincts and can become very insightful. In fact, it is the very con artists that you fear that have honed their instincts so very well, because they know how everyone else's elephants work. But that's just the villainous version of human wisdom: an ability to read and understand people at the "elephant level" as well as the "rider level".

Anyway, I'm mostly speculating, here, based on how well I know you and our conversations. If my words don't resonate with you, then perhaps I am still missing something, but I think the pattern I'm spotting is very close to the truth of where you are at, in terms of personal connection. 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.

 

[Poki]

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. On top of that, there were no books or courses that really talk about this stuff, though youtube and FB and other sources are quickly filling that gap with helpful (and not so helpful - see this link I stole from the Random Thought Thread that satirizes the genre: https://www.facebook.com/SimtemOfficial/videos/1130856496936329/ ) advice.

A "personal connection" is what you have with the very closest people in your life. You already trust that. Based on what I've gradually learned over the years, the part you are missing is is the part that INFJs seem to intuitively understand from the get-go: connection isn't a switch, it's a dial. When the dial is close to neutral, that's your normal everyday human connection where you treat other people with respect and honor simple basic requests and courtesies. The dial is set more negative for people who have demonstrated abusive tendencies (I'm using "abusive" broadly, from mildly abusing your trust to literal damaging abuse, and so on). The dial is set more positive for people where reciprocity is strong and you just naturally do good things for each other without having to ask or worry about being taken advantage of. And there are an infinite number of degrees in between all of these.

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.)

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. Most people, because they don't hew so closely to logic and reason, do hone those instincts and can become very insightful. In fact, it is the very con artists that you fear that have honed their instincts so very well, because they know how everyone else's elephants work. But that's just the villainous version of human wisdom: an ability to read and understand people at the "elephant level" as well as the "rider level".

Anyway, I'm mostly speculating, here, based on how well I know you and our conversations. If my words don't resonate with you, then perhaps I am still missing something, but I think the pattern I'm spotting is very close to the truth of where you are at, in terms of personal connection. 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.

I disagree with the logic switch. I have actually worked my whole life to go from digital to analog. I end with a very accurate digital picture which depending on the situation, etc. I add filters and remove the sharp edges and create an overall analog picture. Its always a bit fuzzy, but still highly accurate because i can actually zoom into the fuzzy and see all the digital logic that sits behind it. What this actually does is morph that part of the picture into possibilities. Which at that point i need more info so i can begin to de-fuzzy it. What describe is more analog to digital, not digital to analog.

The most crude analog to digital turns into an on off switch. When analog hitsba certain point its on, when it drops it eventually hits off.

The most crude digital to analog turns it into a simple sine wave. When it hits on, it has to ramp up, when it hits off it has to ramp down.

This is a core concept behind how i work.

Instead of a constant trust where i am converting analog back to digital switches. I learn exactly what i can trust. I can trust you to screw me over in this instance, this other instance i can trust you to help me because of xyz.