NickWolff

Hello Anthony. Thank your for your kind response. Yes. The introduction was vague but I thought it right to gauge interest before rudely tossing it onto a board. Some people might have found that presumptuous. If you are interested, I'd be happy to share the tool, model and explanation with you. I also hope you would be kind enough to return the data to me upon completion should you choose to participate. This way you might be able to evaluate my process and provide me valuable feedback if you have any concerns from an ethical use standpoint. If you would like to see it, do you have a preferred method for me to get it to you? Despite years in the private sector, I have some but limited experience in research methods. I'm in the process of soliciting the help of researchers locally, but if you know of resources or others who might be in a position to offer some guidance from a standpoint of legality, I'd certainly appreciate that. Best regards, Nick

At no point have I ever claimed that subjective perspective should be favored over the real world. For some reason, you persist in insisting that that I have. I have stated that our subjective interpretations impact our interactions with others. In what way does highlighting that phenomenon conflict with reality? And to help people see this with a tool is a practical way to help them. To use an analogy, your approach would require people to be taught the internal workings of an internal combustion engine before they should be allowed to drive. I think your expectations, though laudable, may be ambitious.

"You're describing personalities, not preferences. This is one of those distinctions that if it has to be made for you, I do not think you're qualified for the undertaking you've selected." There may be some disagreement in semantics here. But, preferences are components of personality. The MBTI for example measures 4 such preferences and are referred to as such in the model. "First, I think it would stem from a lack of acceptance of the reality that we are a social, interdependent species of which there are over 7 billion on the planet. Or a lack of acceptance that self and the other are not fundamentally different in such a way that principles would apply differently." Perhaps. Or it could be that many see it as impractical or beyond their facility to invest the time to to accept those notions. "Secondly, you say that no claim is made, but there are three that I see. The initial one being the claim that their personality is binding upon others. The follow up one comes from not talking about friction when it's noticed in an attempt to achieve a resolution. This is the claim that the other must conform to self automatically while not simultaneously claiming that self should conform to the other. Then the claim is made that the other should make an effort to resolve this discrepancy while not simultaneously claiming that self should make an effort." One's personality is not binding upon others. We have the right of free association. However, in our world there are many occasions where we must associate with people, we normally would not--the workplace for example. Yes, it is possible to not make any accommodation for the differences of others, but you may find that that strategy will leave you worse off than other strategies. The problem of not talking about friction when it is noticed is that it is rarely seen for what it is without having been taught to be aware of it. You may offer a bit of leeway for mistakes people make but which they are not aware of. My tool helps to make this visible, and therefore actionable. It facilitates the very conversations you seem to be advocating for. And no claim is made that simultaneous accommodation shouldn't be strived for nor even necessarily done. Often the simple realization that people are the way they are is enough to resolve the growing conflict. However, the pair may find they are mutually more effective together when they choose to accommodate each other. The ice cream example was a hypothetical that you requested. It was intentially an oversimplified case to illustrate the conept only. I've never claimed that my tool is more accurate than philospohy. Like all theories, it was constructed to explain data or to predict data. My results to date have been promising. I have iterated several times that by their very nature, an individual's interpretation of objective data is subjective and it is the difference in interpretation that is the source of most durable conflict. And due to it's subjective nature, there is not a way to evaluate it objectively. It seems to me that you are trying to apply a framework that is ill-suited to evaluting the phenomomena. But I could be wrong here. Despite me asking several times, you have yet to agree if it's possible for 2 people to see the same data and arrive at different interpretations. So I have to assume that you aren't sure or don't agree with it. Is that correct? If it is, then do you think that those different interpretations have no impact on interpersonal interactions? And if they do, do you think that helping to explain those differences may help to increase self-knowledge and understanding of others - leading to better interpersonal outcomes?

"Can you think of a conflict that has arisen from preference where none of these criteria are also satisfied?" You say you like chocolate, I like vanilla, where is the conflict? Well, if we together must find a way to purchase a gallon of ice cream and due to scarcity can only procure one, we may find ourselves with conflicting priorities arising from our conflicting preferences. Another example: Suppose one person in an office has a preference for spontenaeity and a more unstructured approach to work. That person works with another individual who greatly appreciates structure, procedure, and process. They are in a workplace together and interact often. Both individuals perform adequately the tasks they are required to do. Yet when these two individuals work together, their interactions leave them both frustrated and annoyed. Left to fester, frustrations and annoyances fester into anger and dysfuction. Note that neither party has made any claim on the other, but the difference in personal preference is the nature of their frustration and annoyance. "Are you aware of how you reasoned to the position that there are 12 archetypes?" This question posed here is unclear to me. Can you clarify? "Did you read my last post beyond the first sentence that you disagreed with?" I did. And I noted that the reality is that multiple perspectives exist and are relevant because they impact interpersonal interactions (ie the real world). I may be wrong, but It seems to me that you believe the tool describes reality with less precision than I do. That may be the case, but that is why I am conducting the research.

I don't agree with your statement that perception alone cannot lead to conflict. The mere fact the people with heterogeneous ideas interact creates abrasion that can and does result in interpersonal conflict. It may not lead to violence (which the initiation of is objectively evil), but conflict certainly does result. Do you not believe that disagreement can emerge from two people's differing subjective interpretations of objective data and that both interpretations can be justifiable? In many instances classifying things as objectively right or wrong is inappropriate, particularly when interactions are voluntary. Nevertheless, if we care to have productive dealings with others who have different interpretations of data, we are often obliged to accommodate these varying perspectives, to the extent that those perspectives don't present a moral problem. The fact that the differing perspectives exist is the reality of the environment. Many workplaces, for instance, have strong interpersonal conflict due to these differences of perception. This impacts interactions and often leads to group dysfunction even though no behavior is objectively wrong. The tool seeks to broaden the awareness of these differences for all parties involved. Do you see no benefit to this? [edit] If you see no benefit in this, perhaps it might help to illustrate what happens when this doesn't happen. After a prolonged discussion, if one party cannot understand how the other party reasoned their way to that position (which my tool would help facilitate), it becomes extremely seductive to assign unfair descriptors such as malice, ignorance, and bigotry to justifiable positions. I find that most unfair, unproductive, and unfortunate.

Do our personal will and preferences directly influence the real world? No. Do our personal will and preferences shape how we react to events? Undoubtedly, though you may think it irrelevant. Is there no context where you think it might be? Do I think that if our interpretation of our senses conflict with the real world, our senses must give way? Yes. Do I think people with differing experiences and perspectives can see the same objective data and arrive at very different subjective interpretations of the data--and that in many cases there isn't an absolutely correct interpretation? Yes. Do you think differently?

I truly appreciate your comments and your skeptical perspective. As I have said, I look to the wisdom of this forum to provide me the degree of inquiry that I haven't had the benefit of previously. So I hope you do not feel exasperated as you work with me through your constructive feedback. Regarding honest, accurate, and substantiated... I do hope that you haven't felt that I've been in any way dishonest or disingenuous. You have been gracious in offering helpful criticisms and I have tried to respond in a similar manner. With regard to accurate and substantiated, I hope I have made it clear that I've been developing this idea for almost a year and although the data I've been accumulating is promising, I have not declared the idea to be flawless or even scientifically validated. By growing my sample set and performing rigorous analysis of the data, I hope to develop the scientific validity of the model. The three needs I discussed in my initial post should illustrate that. I have also made every effort not to misrepresent my model in a way that it promises more than what it is in a position to deliver. This kind of interaction is precisely what I was hoping to have by introducing my idea here. Folks here are well-practiced in subjecting ideas to the guantlet of inquiry. If I can represent my case well before this court, I think I will be well positioned to be persuasive to others. It is practice that I very much need (as evidenced by this thread). Onto the content. Matters of personal preference in my experience do lead to bitter conflicts, because individuals wrap so much of their self-identity around their value preferences. It is a fact that our minds process 4 or 5 billion pieces of information per second but that we are consciously aware of only about 40 of them at one time. Do you not believe that individual preferences impact which of those pieces of information we pay attention to, how we see situations and the actions we take to respond to them? I think one of the benefits of philosophical thought and critical thinking is the knowledge that we must always be on guard for our own personal bias and preferences to question our own perspective. Yes there is one reality, but our minds (especially our conscious minds) are not physically able to understand every aspect of that reality. By necessity, we prioritize the things to which we pay attention. As Stef has said on numerous occasions, (paraphrasing) people react strongly to anything that forces to re-evaluate the premises and assumptions they bring to situations. So the question is how can we productively interact with them? One option is to provide them a logical argument and try to see show them their error. But, those who are unpracticed in taking an objective approach are going to most likely find the logical argument unpersuasive as they are blinded by their own emotional reaction. Alternatively, you could resort to the "against me" argument and risk your relationship with your audience on the either-or proposition that forces them to make their choice without giving them the necessary time and opportunity to reconsider their preferences in a low anxiety way. I propose a third path. It believe this tool provides a way to explain personal preferences in such a way that it allows for people to assume a more dispassionate and objective perspective into their own thinking. Few people are strong enough to participate in an examination of their own preferences and ideas or the ramifications of them. My tool places these preferences and ideas outside of them (on a sheet of paper or computer screen) which makes it much easier to discuss their implications with a smaller risk of emotional defensiveness. To summarize, when we observe coercion and rationalization and we feel obliged to intervene, I can think of three potential options: Launch into a rational discussion of morality and ethics from my perspective and hope that other person is of such empathy and rationality to overcome their own emotional biases for the argument to resonate with them. (I would contend that this approach may not be effective in changing minds.) We can bring the issue to a head using a binary response question such as the "about me" argument. This case does help to determine how far one would go to advance his or her agenda, which is informative. It, however, is not a persuasive argment. It only helps to identify who is sociopathic in their advocacy. Those who are not sociopathic may not advocate the use of violence to promote their aims, but they are not prompted to revisit their own perspectives. At best, the conversation has been pointless. At worst, the implications of the question are off-putting to others and harm relationships. The third option is one I support. By identifying an individual's primary value motivators, one is able to launch into a discussion of morality and ethics from the perspective of the audience. Messages constructed around the audience's perspective have an increased chance of resonating with them and proving influential. Returning to coercion, I agree with you that positive claims on the efforts or property of another is immoral. But, I don't see how any value archetype necessarily results in such a claim on anyone. I think here the tool provides more guidance. Because the more strongly you identify with a particular archetype, as someone presses against that archetype you will react emotionally. To protect one's set of biases and assumptions, people often erect defenses around those biases and assumptions. Those who can, will often affect those defenses in the real world. It is the erection of defenses in the physical world that usually are the manifestation of coercive behavior. The individual justifies his or her coercive action with rationalization. Note that any archetype can descend into this level of dysfunction. My tool will help them to escape it, by showing them that their values exist in concert of those of others, and that it is evil to place their own at the center of society. Those opposite them on the Value Zodiac are best able to articulate a counter narrative that will be persuasive to others if ultimately not persuasive to the original person. You indicated that you think that having 12 archetypes will serve to alienate the participants. I have to challenge this statement. As it appears that all perspectives are represented in the model I would think it would help to enroll people in the process and add increased appreciation for others. Thank you and I hope you haven't lost interest in this discussion.

First, you are not being annoying. You are asking for clarity, which is good learning for me. Thank you. It may help to discuss how I went about creating the model. I compiled a list of human values and consolidated that list into overarching themes. Keep in mind that this is an abstraction, so there is going to be some ambiguity about the boundaries what each archetype encompasses. The Hermit archetype whose central value theme is individuality includes values such as nonconformity, freedom, integrity, self-reliance, and honor. The opposing Healer archetype whose central value theme is community includes values such as tolerance, benevolence, collaboration, involvement and unity. Therefore, the model seeks to evaluate the extent to which a person places the values of individualism relative to the values of community. Though we may discuss which set of values should take precendence, the hierarchy of values in an individual is largely a matter of personal preference. Your objection about whether views have been developed rationally is a valid one. I would preface my response by saying that I am not well practiced in using philosophical vernacular so bear with me as I try my best to be precise in my language. The sentence you referred to was not to say that you need to accept irrational beliefs as a condition of cooperation. However, if we wish to be influential, persuasive arguments are most effective where we meet someone where they are and atttempt to guide them to a better place. We won't disagree that there is one reality. There are not 12 different worldviews. There are 12 preferences of individuals which greatly impact how one reacts to that reality. The range of reactions could vary greatly. One example: I once took a class on group dynamics, which is essentially long-duration unstructured group interaction. Those who had a preference for spontaneous situations really enjoyed the class and felt at ease, while others who valued order and structure became visibly upset and hated the class. Both individuals experienced the same reality, but each was driven by their own preferences which drove them to completely different reactions to that reality. It is through the diversity of these preferences that we find ourselves in bitter and seemingly unresolvable conflicts. The tool is not intended to measure reality. It's used to measure the strength of the preferences which impact how we react to a given situation. I hope that clarifies things somewhat, though I am sure questions still remain.

Thank for your response. The fundamental premise of the model is that there are 12 themes of human value for each of which I have designated archetypes. Each archetype is countered by an equal and opposite archetype. It is through the collision of these equal and opposite value archetypes that lie the seeds of impasse. For example, one archetype represents order and structure while another represents a more spontaneous approach to life. Others include individualism vs. collectivism and tradition vs. innovation. There are 6 such pairs, so when I say worldview, I mean that everyone has a unique perspective on how important these values are to oneself and are appreciated in differing degrees. My youtube videos may help to explain the concept better if I am not doing so sufficiently here. An individual then can take that worldview and prioritize what he or she believes to be most important. I'm going to avoid making discussions of morality here because the intent is to highlight how one can rationally arrive at a certain viewpoint. A discussion of morality tied to notions of UPB for example is one that can be achieved through reasoned discussion after identifying a person's worldview. The Value Zodiac conceptual model is a useful tool for quickly pinpointing how people see the world differently. I agree, that morality can describe all of these phenomena, but productive, rational discussion of morality can only take place when both parties are able to understand the reasoning process of the adversary that led them to their position. When this doesn't happen, as so often occurs today, it becomes seductive to assign malice, irrationality, disingenuousness, or bigotry to the opponent. The Value Zodiac forces people to reconsider the "maligned" perspectives of others. As to your central question regarding the use of force, one of the archetypes, as discussed above, has a deep respect for individualism and an utter disdain for coercion. The more collectivist type could foreseeably place the "greater good" above individual choice which I think is reprehensible, but is nevertheless, good information to start from when working to persuade someone to think differently.

Hello folks, Help me broaden individual understanding to resolve conflict as well as increase happiness and individual effectiveness. My name is Nick Wolff. I have been following FDR for several months now. I just joined the community and would like to ask the community for some help. For nearly a year, I have been developing a conceptual construct and assessment tool that is designed to measure an individual's worldview though human values. Originally formed as a conflict resolution tool to understand why so often people end up in an impasse, I have begun to see many potential uses for it, spanning conflict resolution, ethics education, pre-marital counseling, career counseling, etc. For many reasons, I believe it has real advantages over similar "personality assessments" because it tries to identify primary motivators. I have been working to have individuals take the assessment and have over 100 responders so far. The vast majority of participants have told me that the tool is accurate and insightful. I recently applied to a doctoral program at a local state university to provide me a platform from which to launch a major research endeavor, but my application was not accepted. So now, I am struggling with how to launch it myself. I have several needs and I hope the collective knowledge of the FDR community can provide me some guidance and/or assistance. 1. I am trying to convert the tool from a pen & paper, facilitated version to a web-based version, but I do not have the necessary expertise to get it done. My colleagues have met with some difficulty in doing the task for me. PhP/MySQL assistance would be appreciated. 2. I am obtaining some significant data, but have not been provided the necessary tools on how to effectively analyze the data. Individuals who might be willing to give me guidance on this would be appreciated. 3. I am also seeking new participants who would be willing to participate in the tool to broaden my data set. Before discussing the information in detail in this forum, I wanted to gauge interest/curiosity on the subject. If there is interest, I'd be happy to share the model and idea with the FDR community. I have started a YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/WolffConsultingCo) with videos describing the model and a website (http://ValuesAndInfluence.com) to provide a quick overview of the model for those who are curious about it. I think this model would be of benefit to the FDR community as we all seem to care about promoting interpersonal understanding and increasing self-knowledge. I think my tool can help with both aims. Thank you very much for your consideration. I look forward to your responses.