core principles of the NNTD
- from this exploration: re core principles of the NNTD - is "principle" even the right word for this?
- see also "meta-memetic principles of the NNTD", ie "principles for how to relate to the concept of the NNTD"
- There's a sense in which the NNTD is only one thing, not unlike the sense in which physics is only one thing. But it has a lot of particulars, and so here follows many ways to point at that one thing.
- This list is not to be memorized or followed or agreed-with!
- Things you might usefully do with this list:
- try to find a vantage point in your own mind from which what's being said here seems obvious to you
- ask "if this were so, what would it imply?" and see if you find other generalizations
- ask "do I have any experiences that make way more sense in light of this generalization?"
- whether that's an experience of trust-building working well, or a breakdown of trust
- ask "do I have any experiences that seem to confirm this generalization?"
- ask "do I have any experiences that seem to contradict this generalization?"
- if so, see if you can rearticulate the generalization so that it conveys the same truth doesn't contradict
- list of principles/AFAICTs
- I used to think the onus was on the person perceiving themselves as punished, to reinterpret things
- I now see this as a co-responsibility thing
- The collaborative mindset is always preferable to the coercive mindset
- "anything coercion can do, collaboration can do better"
- (though ofc their conscious perspective won't necessarily include that sense, and they might consciously "disendorse" their behavior)
- there's no clear boundary between acts & speech acts; between behavior & conversation
- utterances do things
- actions communicate meanings
- If A doesn't trust B in some way, or is not able to lean into some sort of connection with B, then...
- This does not mean that B is "not trustable"
- It doesn't contradict B trusting themselves in that way
- It doesn't contradict C trusting B in that way
- A is standing for some sort of integrity; to simply trust would be naive, and would not build non-naive trust.
- Honoring & validating A's integrity is vital, while also fully validating B's integrity.
- Validating A's not-leaning-in in one moment doesn't invalidate past experiences B may have had of A leaning in
- that there are times when I feel like I see some move that if someone would make it, would feed the upward spiral. if I assume that this person wants to fuel the upward spiral, this seems to imply at least one of
- this move wouldn't occur to them because of some missing information/skill/awareness
- to perform such a move given their set of experiences, including their experiences of me over time, would be naive and would therefore undermine the upward spiral
- something around "healing from trauma is about learning that it's okay to feel what you feel and know what you know" — Bessel van der Kolk
- & want what you want
- & mean what you mean
- &+
- Learning happens roughly via reorganization, as described in the Perceptual Control Theory model
- this implies directly that not just that punishment can't steer but also that any kind of deliberate "negative reinforcement" is punishment even if you don't call it that
- blindspot principles
- 1. any person or group of people has a blindspot that people outside can see, and it will tend to bother and disturb them (if it doesn't, they probably have the same blindspot or a compatible one)
- 2. those outside people will in general try to point at that blindspot, however indirectly or clumsily (often what they say is 100% tinted with their own stuff/projection, even as it's also entirely not a coincidence that they're projecting that-stuff onto that-person, and so in that sense it's 100% relevant too)
- 3. to the extent that people have power of any kind, they will (usually unconsciously) use that power to assert that their blindspot constellation is the one that stays unquestioned and in group's shadow. this will tend to cause others to layer
- 4. this is in part because, by default, trying to integrate feedback about your own blindspots causes you to layer, because you end up overcompensating trying to change stuff you can't see
- 5. there's thus a really delicate process that needs to happen to untangle all of this stuff, and nobody has a complete description of how to do it but we can make pointers at approaches that will tend to work better than others
- 6. there are substantial limits on what can be achieved alone
- 7. there are even limitier limits on what can be known to have been achieved, alone.
- ie some stuff you can in some sense untangle on your own, but you can't actually know you've untangled it until you try interacting with various people and find out what happens now (though you could be more or less confident and more or less calibrated)
- other core principles from the 2020 Intro doc
- There's no such thing as a "coercive part"
- Dick Schwartz's new IFS book is called No Bad Parts
- things that are closer to assumptions than principles or axioms
- ….we all contain a set of criteria that we need in order to feel safe enough to let go of coercive patterns. And it's not others' sole responsibility to create that safety for us, but neither is it our own sole responsibility.
- and it's different for everyone, although there are also commonalities
- also this is an old quote (from Aug 2020) and I would phrase it differently now
- it's not so much about letting go of coercive patterns but learning other ways that are also safe but don't generate unsafety for others
- how would I rephrase this now?
- probably a few of the items listed above would be like this, ie I'm not totally certain of them
3 linked references
September 20th, 2021
- #blogpost pipeline I'm thinking about how maybe I could do a thread where I tweet each of the phrases that comprise core principles of the NNTD
NNTD pith instructions discussion
- friend > I needed something like that, as opposed to the core principles of the NNTD page, which feels too big/complicated/rabbit-holey
- It's just very instantly practical
June 27th, 2021
- re core principles of the NNTD - is "principle" even the right word for this?
- always in search of a better metaphor
- Upstart had "commitments & assumptions"
- commitments are definitely confused in this context
- assumptions are sort of good but we mostly don't actually want people to be assuming things, except experimentally
- other ideas
- heuristics
- understandings
- observations
- knowings
- I just put "principles" into powerthesaurus.com and got back:
- rule, precept, tenet, belief, doctrine, canon, integrity, axiom, dogma, law, basis, morality, fundamental, proposition, rationale, idea, maxim, standard, creed, morals, rectitude, credo, probity, ideals, regulation
- and like, I kind of like some of these, though also, yeah
- current connotation & etymology both feel important
- "principle" has a cool & appropriate etymology
- > late 14c., "origin, source, beginning" (a sense now obsolete), also "rule of conduct; axiom, basic assumption; elemental aspect of a craft or discipline," from Anglo-French principle, Old French principe "origin, cause, principle," from Latin principium (plural principia) "a beginning, commencement, origin, first part," in plural "foundation, elements," from princeps (genitive principis) "first man, chief leader; ruler, sovereign," noun use of adjective meaning "that takes first," from primus "first" (see prime (adj.)) + root of capere "to take" (from PIE root *kap- "to grasp").
From the notion of "one of the fundamental tenets or doctrines of a system, a law or truth on which others are founded" comes the sense of "a right rule of conduct" (1530s).
It is often easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. [Adlai Stevenson, speech, New York City, Aug. 27, 1952]
Scientific sense of "general law of nature," by virtue of which a machine or instrument operates, is recorded from 1802. - "element" is suggested by this
- "axiom" is also pretty cool
- > "statement of self-evident truth,"
- > from axios "worthy, worth, of like value, weighing as much"
- "proposition"
- > mid-14c., proposicioun, "a riddle" (a sense now obsolete);
- > proposition (n.)
mid-14c., proposicioun, "a riddle" (a sense now obsolete); late 14c., in rhetoric, "a setting forth as a topic for discussion or discourse," from Old French proposicion "proposal, submission, (philosophical) proposition" (12c.), from Latin propositionem (nominative propositio) "a setting forth, statement, a presentation, representation; fundamental assumption," noun of action from past-participle stem of proponere "put forth, set forth, lay out, display, expose to view" (see propound). Meaning "action of proposing something to be done, an offered plan of action," is from late 14c. General sense of "matter, problem, undertaking" recorded by 1877. Related: Propositional; propositionally.
- I like "axiom" in the sense of "something that is supposed to be self-evident"
- because it potentially invites the conversation to explore the question of whether it's in fact self-evident to everyone involved?
- I'm also thinking about the phrase as far as I can tell
- what if instead of "core principles" we had a list of the AFAICTs of NNTD?
- anyway, I think I'm mostly going to go with principles for now