Malcolm Ocean's roamblog

February 17th, 2022

edited 2022-02-17 · open in Roam
  • convo with Naryan Wong
    • during which I found
      • my old 2015 What are the components or dimensions required for collaborative culture? (which I probably see very differently now)
        • what is it? it's not just a secret, there's a capacity involved too
        • what is the core that needs to be nurtured until it's strong enough the the trappings can be stripped away?
        • 1. not being subject to the majority of one's own thoughts
          • is that necessary? I imagine someone in H3 who is subject to most of their own thoughts. It's more like H1
          • is it sufficient? No... you'd also need...
        • 2. holding others as beings with subj & obj (not necessarily those terms)
          • ...this implies that much of your interaction with someone can just be with those patterns and the patterns aren't them
          • is that necessary? I imagine someone in H3 who doesn't hold others this way... my simulation suggests that the person is at least somewhat judgmental
          • is it sufficient? I imagine someone with both 1 and 2, who is not in an H3 mindset. They might also need...
        • 3. a desire to understand and empathize with others' experience, and a capacity to do so
          • is this necessary? yes, otherwise the person would be cold and disconnected
          • is it sufficient? I imagine someone with all three, who is not in an H3 mindset...
        • 4. growth mindset, including for others, and probably quite a lot of it
          • ...arguably #2 contains this, but if we're strict then it doesn't
          • is this necessary? yes, otherwise it would produce either despair or elitism
          • is this sufficient? I imagine someone with all four, who is not in an H3 mindset...
        • Abstractly, it's hard to imagine someone with all four who is not in an H3 mindset.
        • Do I *know* anyone who has all four of these capacities, who is not in an H3 mindset?
        • Thinking about these people in general it seems that there is a fifth thing, which is the main thing lacking in most circles:
        • 5. a model of the main pattern dynamics and the ability to interface with them constructively
          • is this necessary? maybe not in a world where everyone grows up H3y, but for now certainly and probably even still then
          • is this sufficient? It feels important to note that this needs to be not just a conceptual model but a working model that can be used in the heat of things
    • N > neat hearing how your ideas are evolving
      • yours seem to be changing a lot via dialogue, generating ideas
      • whereas I feel like I'm practicing ideas I'm reading about
        • which gives me an embodied sense
      • and I rarely feel an urge to write further about it, because your writing exists and I can simply point people to it
    • M > curious if you have a sense of what you're hoping I talk about on The Stoa
      • N > I'm main reference for most people I know for stuff like H3
        • so I'm mostly excited to point people at this as an example of a style of thinking
        • I might even make an hour long debrief with my own learning community
        • who do you recognize that showed up here?
        • I still haven't grokked the NNTD
        • but maybe by leveraging my learning community, we might be able to make sense of what it is you're talking about
        • not sure what NNT vs NT is
          • except in rationality terms of better bets
      • M > I guess I basically just need to give enough of an intro that the audience questions aren't bad
    • Dee Hock's speech
  • Duncan Sabien makes a case for using "color blindness" not "blindspot" but I don't think it captures the self-hiding nature of the thing...
    • although this makes a good point
      • > For calibration: mostly-replacing my mental category of "blind spot" with "color-blind" has been one of the ten most useful shifts of my last three years, by virtue of a) giving me a much better starting point for navigating inferential gaps, and b) somehow causing me to be more empathetic? ...I suppose because if the problem is a blind spot, then if they just shift their focus a little, they should see the thing, dammit, whereas if I model them as simply lacking the ability to perceive (even if only because they haven't practiced enough in this domain yet) it suddenly seems much less their-fault if merely shifting their focus doesn't fix it.