Introducing a tool to measure worldview

[NickWolff]

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.

[dsayers]

Hello. The goals you state are worthy of pursuit I would agree. However, I wonder what your definition of worldview is. You used the words tool and accurate, but isn't worldview a concept?

 

"conflict resolution, ethics education, pre-marital counseling, career counseling" can all be addressed with morality. Does it involve initiating the use of force or not is the fundamental question. Does your tool seek to identify this first?

[NickWolff]

Hello. The goals you state are worthy of pursuit I would agree. However, I wonder what your definition of worldview is. You used the words tool and accurate, but isn't worldview a concept?

 

"conflict resolution, ethics education, pre-marital counseling, career counseling" can all be addressed with morality. Does it involve initiating the use of force or not is the fundamental question. Does your tool seek to identify this first?

 

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.

[dsayers]

Sorry to be annoying. I think to be effective, we must be accurate.

 

individualism vs. collectivism

 

What does this mean? To some, individualism can mean self-reliance. To others, the need for self-knowledge. To others still, it could indicate favoring individual rights over fictitious group rights.

 

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.

 

How do you know that a viewpoint was rationally arrived upon? People who subscribe to religion and statism (another religion) did not arrive at those conclusions rationally, they were inflicted upon them. We know this because the conclusions are irrational. Your last sentence here makes it sound as if in order to work together, we must accept the irrational prejudices of others. When in fact the truth value of 2+2=4 is independent of either of our acceptance of it.

 

The Value Zodiac conceptual model is a useful tool for quickly pinpointing how people see the world differently.

 

The real world is objective. It's not up to us. When our interpretation of the evidence of our senses (the sun and moon are about the same size) conflicts with the real world, our senses must give way. If the source of a disagreement is the relative size of the sun and the moon, to understand how somebody arrived at the wrong answer would not be helpful EXCEPT that the error is fundamentally the belief that our senses subjugate the real world.

 

In other words, I don't see how talking about 12 worldviews could be described as a tool, accurate, or insightful. Either a person accepts reality or they do not. If they do in one area but do not in another, then their disagreement with another person is not an external phenomenon. It's their own inconsistency with acceptance of the real world. If two people who accept reality have a disagreement, we have ways of determining which viewpoint more accurately describes the real world.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that if your stated goal is to help people, I think adding clarity rather than obfuscation will provide genuine help.

[NickWolff]

Sorry to be annoying. I think to be effective, we must be accurate.

 

 

What does this mean? To some, individualism can mean self-reliance. To others, the need for self-knowledge. To others still, it could indicate favoring individual rights over fictitious group rights.

 

 

How do you know that a viewpoint was rationally arrived upon? People who subscribe to religion and statism (another religion) did not arrive at those conclusions rationally, they were inflicted upon them. We know this because the conclusions are irrational. Your last sentence here makes it sound as if in order to work together, we must accept the irrational prejudices of others. When in fact the truth value of 2+2=4 is independent of either of our acceptance of it.

 

 

The real world is objective. It's not up to us. When our interpretation of the evidence of our senses (the sun and moon are about the same size) conflicts with the real world, our senses must give way. If the source of a disagreement is the relative size of the sun and the moon, to understand how somebody arrived at the wrong answer would not be helpful EXCEPT that the error is fundamentally the belief that our senses subjugate the real world.

 

In other words, I don't see how talking about 12 worldviews could be described as a tool, accurate, or insightful. Either a person accepts reality or they do not. If they do in one area but do not in another, then their disagreement with another person is not an external phenomenon. It's their own inconsistency with acceptance of the real world. If two people who accept reality have a disagreement, we have ways of determining which viewpoint more accurately describes the real world.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that if your stated goal is to help people, I think adding clarity rather than obfuscation will provide genuine help.

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.

[dsayers]

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.

 

How does "I enjoyed that class" vs "I did not enjoy that class" lead to bitter and seemingly unresolvable conflicts? Preferences do not lead to conflicts, but claims can. The only way a preference can lead to a conflict is if they claim that it is binding upon others. This would be accrued to the claim though and not the preference.

 

We can logically prove that positive obligations in the absence of consent are immoral. Thus we can invalidate the claim that one's preference could be binding upon another. This is an example of how a philosophical approach could efficiently resolve such a conflict where labeling preferences and requiring 12 categories would only serve to complicate and alienate the participants.

 

After three posts, I am unconvinced that your approach will achieve your stated goal. I have been displaying skepticism and it doesn't seem to challenge how much you believe your approach will achieve your stated goal. Which might be normal. It could very well be that you know exactly what you're talking about and it's just all over my head, in which case, your resolve should not be altered by my challenging it. I just think that if this is something you'd like to offer others as a way to help them, you should be able to explain it in a way that is honest, accurate, and substantiated. And given the importance you have assigned to this, that such challenges should be considered.

[NickWolff]

How does "I enjoyed that class" vs "I did not enjoy that class" lead to bitter and seemingly unresolvable conflicts? Preferences do not lead to conflicts, but claims can. The only way a preference can lead to a conflict is if they claim that it is binding upon others. This would be accrued to the claim though and not the preference.

 

We can logically prove that positive obligations in the absence of consent are immoral. Thus we can invalidate the claim that one's preference could be binding upon another. This is an example of how a philosophical approach could efficiently resolve such a conflict where labeling preferences and requiring 12 categories would only serve to complicate and alienate the participants.

 

After three posts, I am unconvinced that your approach will achieve your stated goal. I have been displaying skepticism and it doesn't seem to challenge how much you believe your approach will achieve your stated goal. Which might be normal. It could very well be that you know exactly what you're talking about and it's just all over my head, in which case, your resolve should not be altered by my challenging it. I just think that if this is something you'd like to offer others as a way to help them, you should be able to explain it in a way that is honest, accurate, and substantiated. And given the importance you have assigned to this, that such challenges should be considered.

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.

[dsayers]

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.

 

The tool doesn't appear to be objective at all. You are talking about views and preferences, but these things are subjective.

 

Launch into a rational discussion of morality and ethics from my perspective

 

Valid morality isn't subjective. I will make the case for that here and you can tell me what you think:

 

You own yourself and people are not fundamentally different from one another. As such, everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else.

 

To me, it is that simple. Which I understand doesn't necessarily make it right since I recognize my own bias for simplicity. But this understanding of my bias, and that it must give way to the real world in the event that I have not described it accurately, is the basis for any real conflict resolution. Otherwise, it becomes just as you state: competing personal preferences backed by claims that personal preference supersedes the real world.

 

Thank you and I hope you haven't lost interest in this discussion.

 

I am indeed losing interest. The reason is inconsistency. You make the claim that subjective preference is a problem but reject that the objective world could provide the solution. You make the claim that understanding the root of one's preference is the path to resolution, but reject any effort to understand the root of YOUR preference in using 12 archetypes over the objective world.

 

So let me ask you directly, and let's set aside your tool for these questions: Do you accept that our will and preferences do not have the ability to directly influence the real world? Do you accept that in the event that our interpretation of the evidence of our senses conflicts with the real world (horizon appears flat vs planet is round), our senses must give way?

 

[EDIT]

I meant to also point out that the against me argument only pertains to matters of the state. It is not a blanket approach to conflict resolution. It's purpose is to help somebody talking about an abstract come face to face with the reality that what they're talking about is violence to resolve a difference of opinion.

[NickWolff]

 

 

The tool doesn't appear to be objective at all. You are talking about views and preferences, but these things are subjective.

 

I am indeed losing interest. The reason is inconsistency. You make the claim that subjective preference is a problem but reject that the objective world could provide the solution. You make the claim that understanding the root of one's preference is the path to resolution, but reject any effort to understand the root of YOUR preference in using 12 archetypes over the objective world.

 

So let me ask you directly, and let's set aside your tool for these questions: Do you accept that our will and preferences do not have the ability to directly influence the real world? Do you accept that in the event that our interpretation of the evidence of our senses conflicts with the real world (horizon appears flat vs planet is round), our senses must give way?

 

 

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?

[dsayers]

Okay. So we understand that preference alone cannot lead to conflict. That in order for conflict to arise from a differing view, at least one participant believes either that they can in fact will reality, that their perspective supersedes reality, or that their preference is binding upon another. With this, we have identified the source of the conflict without having to resort to 12 subjective archetypes.

 

People in such a conflict would benefit more from being exposed to philosophical fundamentals such as the difference between objective and subjective, that humans have the capacity for error, and that the validity of the senses is dependent upon the real world. This will help them in their current conflict, help them to avoid other conflicts, help them in other conflicts, and help them help others in terms of conflict resolution and avoidance.

 

I do not think that the tool you speak of will aide in this process, but rather inhibit it. I think that the tool's benefit will be directly related to how accurately it describes the real world.

[NickWolff]

Okay. So we understand that preference alone cannot lead to conflict. That in order for conflict to arise from a differing view, at least one participant believes either that they can in fact will reality, that their perspective supersedes reality, or that their preference is binding upon another. With this, we have identified the source of the conflict without having to resort to 12 subjective archetypes.

 

People in such a conflict would benefit more from being exposed to philosophical fundamentals such as the difference between objective and subjective, that humans have the capacity for error, and that the validity of the senses is dependent upon the real world. This will help them in their current conflict, help them to avoid other conflicts, help them in other conflicts, and help them help others in terms of conflict resolution and avoidance.

 

I do not think that the tool you speak of will aide in this process, but rather inhibit it. I think that the tool's benefit will be directly related to how accurately it describes the real world.

 

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. 

[dsayers]

This is my 6th post in this thread. In my 3rd post, I made the case for preferences alone not leading to conflict. It is unclear as to why you wouldn't challenge it at that point.

 

I like chocolate and you like vanilla. Where is the conflict? I say 2+2=4 and you say 2+2=5. Where is the preference?

 

I addressed this the 2nd time by saying, "in order for conflict to arise from a differing view, at least one participant believes either that they can in fact will reality, that their perspective supersedes reality, or that their preference is binding upon another." Can you think of a conflict that has arisen from preference where none of these criteria are also satisfied?

 

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)

 

Are you aware of how you reasoned to the position that there are 12 archetypes?

 

The tool seeks to broaden the awareness of these differences for all parties involved.  Do you see no benefit to this?

 

I answered this in my last post. I said: "I think that the tool's benefit will be directly related to how accurately it describes the real world."

 

Did you read my last post beyond the first sentence that you disagreed with?

[NickWolff]

This is my 6th post in this thread. In my 3rd post, I made the case for preferences alone not leading to conflict. It is unclear as to why you wouldn't challenge it at that point.

 

I like chocolate and you like vanilla. Where is the conflict? I say 2+2=4 and you say 2+2=5. Where is the preference?

 

I addressed this the 2nd time by saying, "in order for conflict to arise from a differing view, at least one participant believes either that they can in fact will reality, that their perspective supersedes reality, or that their preference is binding upon another." Can you think of a conflict that has arisen from preference where none of these criteria are also satisfied?

 

 

 

Are you aware of how you reasoned to the position that there are 12 archetypes?

 

 

I answered this in my last post. I said: "I think that the tool's benefit will be directly related to how accurately it describes the real world."

 

Did you read my last post beyond the first sentence that you disagreed with?

 

"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.

[dsayers]

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.

 

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.

 

But let's explore it all the same. Do other people with differing personalities ALL experience frustration, annoyance, anger, AND dysfunction? If not, then we can discard the difference in personality as if it were causal like you describe. What then is the root of this outcome?

 

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.

 

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.

 

As for the ice cream one, there's nowhere near enough information. Did a 3rd party impose this task? Who is the ice cream for that the actors' preferences even enter into it while simultaneously their individual drive to satisfy their preference does not? Why is 1 gallon or 1 gallon options, but 2 half gallons is not?

 

This question posed here is unclear to me. Can you clarify?

 

You say that this tool of 12 archetypes will help people to understand how they reasoned to their positions. Yet I've never heard of 12 archetypes. I don't know where it comes from even though I've tried to figure this out. I do know that you're being offered philosophy as an alternative, an impartial 3rd party called the real world as an alternative, yet continue to hold that 12 archetypes more accurately describes the real world. I am curious if you are aware of how you reasoned to that position while claiming that it will help people understand how they reasoned to position. We're not hurling insults here, but this is a conflict, no? I am certainly making the claim that you are bound by the real world as a result of my preference for the truth.

[NickWolff]

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.

 

But let's explore it all the same. Do other people with differing personalities ALL experience frustration, annoyance, anger, AND dysfunction? If not, then we can discard the difference in personality as if it were causal like you describe. What then is the root of this outcome?

 

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.

 

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.

 

As for the ice cream one, there's nowhere near enough information. Did a 3rd party impose this task? Who is the ice cream for that the actors' preferences even enter into it while simultaneously their individual drive to satisfy their preference does not? Why is 1 gallon or 1 gallon options, but 2 half gallons is not?

 

 

You say that this tool of 12 archetypes will help people to understand how they reasoned to their positions. Yet I've never heard of 12 archetypes. I don't know where it comes from even though I've tried to figure this out. I do know that you're being offered philosophy as an alternative, an impartial 3rd party called the real world as an alternative, yet continue to hold that 12 archetypes more accurately describes the real world. I am curious if you are aware of how you reasoned to that position while claiming that it will help people understand how they reasoned to position. We're not hurling insults here, but this is a conflict, no? I am certainly making the claim that you are bound by the real world as a result of my preference for the truth.

 

 

"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? 

[dsayers]

Perhaps.  Or it could be that many see it as impractical or beyond their facility to invest the time to to accept those notions. 

 

Making THIS the problem not the discrepancy in personality itself. Just as I stated.

 

You do not appear interested in the validity of your tool, which contradicts your observation of people favoring their subjective experience over the objective real world, which contradicts your claim that you accept that in such a discrepancy, our senses must give way. You do not appear interested in using the tool to analyze how you arrived at the tool, which contradicts your assurance to others that it would be of benefit to them.

 

I cannot tell if you're being dishonest or lack enough self-knowledge to identify these disconnects, but I do not think the tool is valid or if it were, that you have the proficiency to fulfill the role of facilitator. I wish you luck in facing reality and revising your efforts accordingly before inhibiting others from arriving upon solutions that more accurately describe the real world.

[NickWolff]

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. 

[LovePrevails]

hi your goals sound laudable but your original post doesn't talk very much about the specifics of what this tool is, just what you would like to do about them

 

I look forwards  to hearing more, I think the idea of getting someone to program the quiz, or whatever it is, into a web interface so that thousands and thousands of people can take it and you can log the data is an excellent idea

 

what you will want to do is a approach someone who knows what the ethical standards that are necessary to follow in order to use that data

you do not want to collect 100,000 quiz results only to find out that it is illegal to even use them in research because you did not collect the data in compliance with the law

 

best wishes

Antony

[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

[LovePrevails]

add me on facebook, Antony Sammeroff

 

your best bet is to go speak to a university professor in the humanities

I live in the UK so any data I can gather is likely to be different