NNTD

October 20th, 2025

• 3 steps to empowered dialogue is a protocol based on NNTD
  • (and which to at least some extent I think you need to grok the core insight of NNTD in order to follow; it isn't easy to just simulate. although maybe for easier/simpler things, just like "oh, you're worried about being blamed? that makes sense, but I definitely don't see this as your fault. I just want you to know XYZ, and do with that info what you will")
  • in that sense, it's a... protocol with a meta-protocol step in it

October 15th, 2025

• I notice that some things (in eg Sequence on NNTD) when I look at them I feel scared to write about them publicly
  • maybe not quite scared, but daunted
  • and maybe also that's a sign that I can't just start them by opening them and starting to write
  • not with my current skill etc at writing

September 22nd, 2025

• people writing about NNTD Tasshin Fogleman - "i don't need to adopt other people's models of me wholesale, those are for them, my model of me is for me"
  • x.com/tasshinfogleman/status/1967296838920520158

August 12th, 2025

• NNTD / perspective-taking / everything makes sense guided meditations by me
  • 1. consider a situation where you feel misunderstood, where there's been some conflict, you feel aggrieved, some situation played out in some way that resulted in blame, maybe some sense of
  • 2. now feel into the sense that it made for you to do what you did. be with your own sense of what the situation looked like to you and/or what you were trying to do - whatever it is that the other person doesn't understand... YOU understand it. be with that felt sense. whatever they think, you did something that made sense at the time, at least locally.
  • 2b. [if I'm running this live 1:1, I check (explicitly or implicitly) that they've got some of the felt sense of the self-validation / unspinning / deconfusion / etc vibe.]
  • 3 (open when you're ready enough in terms of 2b)
    • 3. now consider that I could run this exercise with anybody, and in particular I could run it with the other person in the scenario you're imagining, who doesn't understand you and is frustrated with you! and if I did, they would be experiencing the same sensation of how what THEY did also made sense to them. and how YOU don't understand them, and how it makes sense that THEY don't trust YOU, or whatever.
    • 4. now imagine I walk THEM through step 3

August 6th, 2025

• re NNTD from a convo in signal
  • one facet of my Non-Naive Trust Dance insight was the basic recognition that insofar as an agent sees a better way to minimize its prediction error by uniting than by killing/subjugating, it will prefer to unite. and if it doesn't, it won't. anything else is kinda bullshit. and we have reason to think that a lot more uniting is possible among humans, but it requires actually solving the co-criticality problem! but yeah, highlights a bunch of elements of "skill issue".
  • (with an extra caveat that destroying/subjugating other humans often doesn't work as well as it maybe seems to, the realization of which can sometimes cause people to realize that uniting serves them better, without a particular skill upgrade)
  • > enslave/destroy sounds effective in theory but it has lots of practical problems
    
  • yeah exactly. much harder to actually rest, likely to die in the conflict, etc
  • > especially when enacted against things that actually share a lot of self with you, it requires you to numb yourself to perceiving those things -- even if you succeed materially in doing so, you harm yourself in the process by contorting your world understanding
  • right. there's a way in which you can't actually get things to zero that way. I mean I guess you can't by uniting, either—there'll still be problems. but you can at least be not-bullshitting
  • 
    

January 18th, 2025

• NNTD intro thread by Michael "Valentine" Smith
  • read off-twitter: xcancel.com/Morphenius/status/1879962712333304198
  • x.com/Morphenius/status/1879962712333304198

onepager

• NNTD

May 3rd, 2024

• my threads on twitter boundaries NNTD mating dance
  • twitter.com/Malcolm_Ocean/status/1786611248941183303

meta-protocol

• I call my model of the meta-protocol the Non-Naive Trust Dance - NNTD

February 20th, 2024

• notes re NNTD from convo w a friend — extending trust vs trusting the other person over yourself
  • > thinking he was more spiritually developed than me so when he didn’t freak out when I freaked out about a major trauma of mine being activated on day 1, I trusted him over me
  • on a more general level, NNTD also says that this is a confusion. even if it WERE true that he were in some sense right about some risk, trusting him over yourself would STILL be a form of self-abandonment. so it matters zero whether he's more spiritually developed.
  • (and I would contrast this with something I might call "extending trust from yourself to him" (haven't iterated much on the language here) where it's not that his sense contradicts yours and you pick his, but more you're simply uncertain and it feels trusty *enough* TO YOU to roll with someone else's sense of things)

February 10th, 2024

• NNTD you can't trust any more than you can trust - tiny thread
  • twitter.com/Malcolm_Ocean/status/1756387000570253718

November 3rd, 2023

• tiny funny NNTD case study of a kid saying she didn't touch the dog food — arguing over what happened
  • a beautiful lil willful being! but also stuck in a kind of reality fight ego loop
  • ofc the reason to deny it is some sort of anticipating shaming or punishment

September 4th, 2023

• NNTD for parents
  • hmm, a case study of an estranged parent would actually be a really great example
  • because there's, I think, a common dynamic of feeling like the kid wants something impossible, and being stuck in the mode of relating that one does want

August 20th, 2023

• connects ofc with How does the anti-victim stance of NNTD vibe with the anti-victim stance of eg Perri Chase's work?
  • first comment
    • some subtle stuff here. I basically agree about the "it's not the case that insults make one feel self-worthless" but there's relevant details being swept aside here, that you probably don't disagree with but I think that acknowledging them here in some form will create better coherence empathy for the parts of people that might say "but it's not all about my interpretation!"
    • are they insulting you in front of other people? if so, that has consequences that are not affected by your interpretation, for instance:
      • other people misunderstand you (suppose the insult was based on something that didn't happen)
      • other people don't invite you to parties
      • other people think you're a loser/pushover
      • no gf
    • and of course, perhaps:
      • other people think the person making the insult a jerk
    • in the extreme case, not that I think this is common in today's world, someone insulting you could lead to you being physically attacked. "them's fighting words".
    • in which case–insofar as your sense of worth is not just a value you set to 100% because you've done a ton of jhanas and you can just do that, but actually a measure of how much you are liked and valued and appreciated—your self-worth is in fact dropping in expectation in response to this insult.
    • whether or not (and importantly, if so, how) you stand up for yourself ALSO has real consequences—it affects the kind of culture you live in, whether:
    • - FROM one where people disrespect each other when they can get away with it TO one where that isn't tolerated and we call people out on it
    • - FROM one where people make fun of each other but that's chill we're all buds yay countersignalling TO one where we're tense and uptight and can't take a joke
    • (which of these stories fits better, of course, depends on both the details of the situation and the interpretation—people could disagree. and people might want to live in different cultures, and confronting these questions together is part of how that happens.)
    • my sense is that you are going to get to a bunch of this maybe?

May 12th, 2023

• NNTD case study
  • the gal Jess had to kick out of luminous - great opportunity to talk about blame & shame & shifting membranes/boundaries

Looking, Direct-Knowing, Gnosis, ~Trust

• part of the whole deal of NNTD is that "I don't/can't trust you/this" is ALWAYS something you can tell for yourself

March 5th, 2023

• I find Vervaeke's frame that you should feel threatened by dukkha to be clearly lacking the NNTD insight, which is interesting since he obviously knows way more dharma stuff than me
  • he also talks in terms of the eightfold path as a way to "cultivate a counteractive dynamical system" which, I mean, is going to tend people towards more tangles afaict, since that's what counteractive strategies tend to do

a common confusion: "there's no way to satisfy this person's ask while staying in integrity" when what's actually so is "I __can't think of__ a way to satisfy this person's ask while staying in integrity"

• this is relevant to the NNTD because

January 18th, 2023

• Applications of NNTD - "I can't trust that X" phrasing: people can't *trust* that there aren't microchips in the vaccines
  • (their standards of proof or whatever might be absurd, their distrust might come from something other than the relevant facts or might be paranoid confabulation ie they feel strong distrust and they generate that idea as a way to explain why the distrust is there, but yeah. there is a way it would feel if they trusted that and they don't feel that)
  • (maybe! I guess people could just be feeling the need to say that for some reason, like it's all verbal but disconnected from the actual physical reality... but I think this can still be modelled in terms of distrust)

November 27th, 2022

• and in some sense the same is true of NNTD and The Circles Maps
  • or rather, the latter is pointing at what happens when you play it well, or something... a new attractor becomes available

October 11th, 2022

• people writing about NNTD
  • danmackinlay.name/notebook/how_to_communicate.html#negotiating-communi…

August 21st, 2022

• NNTD can help with he said she said dynamics
  • first of all there's a need to clarify if you're talking about something objective, that a video camera could have captured, eg "did the trash get taken out before 10am", and if you've got a difference there then either:
    • someone is flat-out lying
      • in which case you have a whole different kind of problem
        • NNTD as a framework mostly takes for granted that people are trying to tell the truth; if not, you have a different kind of problem
        • perhaps a compulsive liar or a sociopath, in which case you'd expect to see some a pattern of chaos in someone's past
        • or perhaps someone is afraid of being punished if they tell the truth
          • perhaps this is a realistic fear
          • perhaps it's totally projection
          • perhaps it's somewhat true, in the sense that they'd experience unbearable shame if the truth came out, even tho nobody externally would intend to punish them
    • someone has a memory problem
      • not particularly common in my experience, and usually in this case one of both people have enough uncertainty to be able to say "well I was pretty sure xyz, but maybe I missed something idk"
    • the people involved are somehow confused which trash is being referred to or something
      • standard rationalist operationalization of terms can basically solve this
        • ie just get more specific until you find the confusion or you become confident there isn't a confusion
  • But more commonly the gap is somewhere in frames
    • like
      • "did A shout at B"
      • "was C disrespectful to D"
      • "was E just trying to win status points over F in front of G"
    • And so then you can find compatible worlds
      • by reframing something like
        • > F says > "from my perspective, I can't trust that you weren't just trying to win status points"
        • +
        • > E says > "from my perspective, I can't trust that you're not just projecting past coworkers onto me"
      • This is not a great state of affairs, but if it's in fact the state of affairs you're in, this is at least a description of the situation that both parties can acknowledge!
      • Like both parties can now go "okay, F can't trust there wasn't statusy stuff, and E can't trust there wasn't projectiony stuff. that's where we're at. what now?"
        • and then there are moves available like
          • respecting that each other can't trust that
          • and expressing that they wouldn't want the other person to naively trust that
        • and once each person feels sufficiently secure in their own perspectives (internally and in the social space) it becomes a lot easier to explore what truth their might be to the other person's
          • like to explore whether there was some status move being attempted, or some projection occurring
          • and of course, on the way, the participants can explore whether eg

Cointelligence R&D Lab Proposal

• How does the anti-victim stance of NNTD vibe with the anti-victim stance of eg Perri Chase's work?

June 30th, 2022

• thread related to NNTD, behaviorism, feedback loops, focus on basic okayness
  • mobile.twitter.com/diviacaroline/status/1542185282065166336

February 23rd, 2022

• planning for February 24th, 2022 The Stoa session on NNTD
  • thinking I might start with a bit of kind of surveying people about NVC
    • like "who here has tried using NVC?"
      • "who has experienced other people using NVC?"
      • "who has experienced NVC breaking down?"
      • "who has experienced breakdowns within or between some other protocols or way of communicating? circling, radical honesty, or even just differences between cultural norms like ask/guess culture?"
    • using NVC-as-specific protocol as a case study
    • and the breakdown of that when someone doesn't trust it as a way to prompt the question to which the meta-protocol / NNTD is an answer
  • + this same process is what's needed to evolve Game B cultures
    • and for Game B or partially-Game-B cultures to recognize each other
    • no matter how great your culture is, in this era (unlike thousands of years ago) you need to also be able to interface with people who have different cultural assumptions
  • worth noting that most of the development of NNTD I've done has been in the context of groups that are already quite high trust
    • but it generalizes somewhat to dealing with some incident with your neighbor or a random person on the internet
  • [could have used more stuff here about what trust is]
  • then what other elements are important?
    • respecting that people can't trust what they can't trust
    • there's no right way to do communication, where if you do it that way you get to say "well, the other person defected"
      • from their perspective, probably you defected
    • meta-trust — capacity to sort shit out
      • maybe the other elements from the NNTD "why the name?" post
    • there are certain general traits & understandings that will make meta-trust way more workable
      • eg that if two people disagree, that doesn't mean one is wrong
      • and seeing how coercion & blame systematically create problems and that it's possible to do something else
      • and the capacity to listen
      • and self-trust to not lose touch with your own knowings
    • but learning these is difficult, and even if you've had the insight on one level, it's very possible for it not to propagate to another area
      • and other people may detect this and notice a blindspot etc
      • and so it's important to not get attached to what you think you know

Podcast summaries

• Keywords: Eric Chisholm Sarah McManus Conversation As Medium blindspot feedback is hard (but possible!) ottergroup fishbowl frame dialogue frame blindspot Circling Liminal Space Agency NNTD upward spiral fuel the upward spiral nobody is to blame What is Blame? building trust out of distrust trust-dancing is an element of all human interactions Game A Game B Circling NVC NNTD has let me see how certain attempts towards trust-building will fail to build non-naive trust obvious

• Keywords: NNTD, Home, everyone will constantly point out ways in which things are incomplete, Learning how to trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowance for their doubting too, community, what might a healthy community look like?, complaints are sacred: how we affirm our values, protectiveness is damage control, defensiveness = protectiveness, Everyone is basically living in a dream mashup of their current external situation & old emotional meanings, sometimes things need to be said even though they feel like they really really should go without saying, What is Blame?, everything makes sense, there's no way to communicate correctly or incorrectly - there's just what works in context and what doesn't work, apologize in the other person's frame; forgive in your own frame, power dynamics

• 12:55 - 16:37 - A quick description of what NNTD is about and what it tries to solve for.

• 1:23:45 - 1:33:48 - Is NNTD and upgraded version of Upstart's ideals and methods? Liminal Space Agency trust-dancing Game A Game B CirclingNVC
  • 1:26:43 - M > Yeah, it it very much feels that way to me because, yeah, that's that's kind of how it emerged. And there's a profound amount of historical contingency to all of this. Like, the name 'Non Naive Trust Dance,' has a lot of rich elements to it, and it's not a coincidence that it's named that. But there's also a way in which like... and I may do things about this over the coming years, or months even, but like one of the things that's currently a little funny is that like, in some sense, Non Naive Trust Dance refers to a thing that people are always doing to greater and lesser degrees of skill and workability and effectiveness. Like, you know, any conversation that people have is them navigating, effectively or not, the trust landscape between them and building trust and building distrust, or having gaps in trust. Like, that's, that's always happening, right? And so in some sense, the Non Naive trust Dance is just a way of talking about a thing that's already happening. But it's already happening, and I didn't invent it in that sense of it, right? And that's part of why I talk about discovering the Non Naive Trust Dance, because it feels in some ways more like a discovery than like an invention. Having said that, it's a discovery that produces a set of kinda obvious implications for how one might go about trust dancing in ways that work in the same way that -and this is an analogy I use often- [in] learning thermodynamics and aerodynamics, it's like, you, you get an immediate sense of like, "Okay, yeah, you can build faster-than-light aircraft, but they need to have some way of lifting themselves," and there's sort of like, three or four-ish, I don't know, I mean, some expert in this could talk about it, but, you know, there's sort of a few ways to do that lifting thing, and, you know, pushing off against the ground can't do it, because you can't do that when you're in the air. Like, just some of these basic principles. And, you know, knowing thermodynamics, you'd also know that you can't build a perpetual motion machine. Like there's limits of entropy that prevent that from being possible. But you can build a superconductor, which is kind of cool. And so there's something where I feel like I've unlocked a very basic couple of fundamental truths about how trust building ever works, when it works. Like, it always follows these principles, but the principles themselves are really hard to put into words. They're like this sort of... I mean, in part because they sound almost tautological, like, they're just like, "you can't trust what you don't trust". But, if you really take that seriously, and you and you look for instances where you're trying to get someone to trust you when they don't, without actually changing what's available to them as information or just salient features that would allow them to trust you, instead of not trusting you, you notice that this is happening constantly with, with things that people say and do and so forth. So even though it's kind of obvious when stated that, like, "you can't trust what you don't trust," that's not actually how people operate most of the time. Anyway, I'm getting a little sidetracked from the the core thrust of your question, which was like, in what sense is the Non Naive Trust Dance an upgrade on what Upstart has been doing this whole time, right? So, in one sense, it just straightforwardly is, and, in some sense, even almost too much so, in that, as I was differentiating myself from that... from just being like, "the main way I have of understanding this collaborative culture thing is how we've been talking about it here, and, in particular, the way that Jean has been talking about it - Jean being the main founder of upstart and that whole project. As I was differentiating myself from her thinking, there was a way in which like, any difference that I had, between how she was seeing things and how I was seeing things that felt central, as opposed to just aesthetic or something got kind of put in the Non Naive Trust Dance. And in that sense, I'm not sure it's one thing. Like, it's in some ways a placeholder for Malcolm having his own thoughts about stuff, which I hadn't previously felt like I had space to do until I sort of started having this new framework. But in a different sense, it all feels really related. So I hope it's an upgrade. It is, at minimum, a critique, and I do have concerns that it's possible that I've missed one or two key pieces of the original, that Jean still understands that I don't. And that, in that sense, it might be a critique that's not actually viable in the sense that I might be missing some basic components. And it might be that I know I see things that ge doesn't see, because I've seen them and I've tested them and they do they do something. But it may be that I'm still missing some key pieces and that's part of why, over the coming years, part of what I want to do is find ways to bridge the thinking that I've developed back with Upstart's thinking which I was already starting to do while I was there - to some success. But I think it's gonna be really helpful for us to have had the space that we've already had, and the further space of me being out here. Which I'm just gonna mention for the recording, because if you're out in British Columbia, particularly on the coast or Vancouver Island area, I would be interested in talking with you, like nebulous podcast listener, people.
  • 1:32:35 - M > Right. And it's funny that you're using the metaphor too, because we've been using the operating system metaphor going all the way back. You know, from the very point that I joined, we were talking about the upward spiral as being humanity 3.0. Which is like the previous two operating systems being the kinda 'Hunter Gatherer pre Game A' one, and then the kind of various forms of much more serious hierarchy that humanity's had, that are also known as Game A. So the operating system metaphor goes deep, and we've even, you know, been reading some open source texts, like the "Cathedral and the Bazaar" and "Homesteading the Noosphere" by Eric S. Raymond. And we've been talking about the Non Naive Trust Dance as something of like a fork of the OS, I guess - a fork of the code of the cultural kernel that Jean has been stewarding for years. And, I mean, maybe one way to point at that a little bit there is, is NNTD the whole fork? Or is it just the changes that I've made on top of the fork, right? Like, is it just the patch? There is a way in which part of what's going on with the NNTD is very much designed to mediate between cultures and assumptions and protocols, kinda wherever they're at. And so, I think that similar patches might be able to be created from the same sort of font of inspiration that I've been drawing from, for other communities, other groups, other practices. You know, like various ways in which circling could benefit from a similar patch, or nonviolent communication or like other similar things. And that, that would make them all more able to talk with each other because of this basic assumption of like, "If something's not working for us, such that you don't trust me, then well, you can't trust me. Like that's how it is and that's the ground from which we need to start." And that needs to somehow be okay, in the sense that like, otherwise, you have to throw out the universe and get a new one.

• 1:33:50 - 1:37:33 - Cultural gaps between the various methods for thinking about and navigating trust dancing. Circling NVC NNTD
  • 1:35:17 - M > Yeah, and the cultural gaps are overtly greater between NVC and Circling, say, than between my understanding of -from a couple of years ago- how to do collaborative culture and Jean's understanding, from a couple of years ago, [of] how to do collaborative culture, such that we were having some tension and friction between us. Like, it's more overt, the difference between circling and NVC, but the basic breakdown that occurs is kind of the same. And, in either case, it's like something about how I'm understanding everything, and something about how you're understanding everything is having trouble talking right now. And we're both bringing our best understandings of what effective communication looks like but because we have different assumptions in different aspects of how we're seeing the world, we're having trouble meeting each other. And so that's like a general description that applies to all scales. And...
  • T > Both within oneself and between groups, you're saying? Or just between different cultures or something like that? That there can be the same similarly shaped problem at different scales?
  • M > Right, so I guess it's actually two scale dimensions. So like scale dimension number one, is within a person versus between two people versus between two groups. With scale dimension number two, it's like the scale of the apparent difference in model. Are we both trying to circle and we even have the same lineage of circling, but we have some tiny basic assumption that's getting in all up in the gears and that is in our mutual blind spot? Because it's a blind spot that circling has that is the source of the problem that we're having, and so we're having trouble debugging it with the system that we have because of its blind spot? That's like, you know... no two people can have the exact same understanding of an interpersonal framework, because it's necessarily going to build on all of your life experiences and nobody has the same life experiences.

• 1:37:35 - 1:56:43 - An example of how to use NNTD to resolve conflict between members of different friend groups NNTD building trust out of distrust NNTD has let me see how certain attempts towards trust-building will fail to build non-naive trust

• 1:56:46 - 2:09:14 - An example of how NNTD can help resolve disagreement around doing the dishes. obvious

December 29th, 2021

• and it has me thinking that the Sequence on NNTD etc needs a simple post about the importance of meta-communication
  • this is implicitly present in the NNTD - why the name? post re generalized trust, but it could be underscored a lot more I think

December 25th, 2021

• these tweets by Ben Hoffman might be an NNTD-shaped-hole sort of confusion, which I might articulate as something like trying to call out instances of blame won't work
  • I think Ben wouldn't think he's making that confusion but I've seen him do it a few times in ways that seemed naive about something to me.
  • I would say he has a good understanding of scapegoating-style dynamics and a good nose for noticing when they might be happening
  • > The linked article seems to proposing a jump from blaming to denying that blame exists, e.g. "Remember that others are acting rationally from their own perspective," which just plain isn't true if people are engaging the blame behavior described.
    
    If we're going to keep accurate accounts together, and blaming is a common & significant behavior pattern, we need to account for *that* as well, even though it's tempting to either blame it or unsee it instead.
    • twitter.com/ben_r_hoffman/status/1303188089297350661
    • twitter.com/ben_r_hoffman/status/1303187851752779778
  • but I'd have to revisit the original article to see to what extent he's confused vs the article is confused
  • (I wholeheartedly agree with the 2nd paragraph. I'm just not sure if the systems thinker article is making the confusion he thinks they are in the first or if that's a misunderstanding)

October 14th, 2021

• this wrt meta-protocol/NNTD
  • relates to Moloch, attractors, incentives

October 12th, 2021

• kinda curious how this relates to my experience of how NNTD has let me see how certain attempts towards trust-building will fail to build non-naive trust
  • twitter.com/Malcolm_Ocean/status/1447863178377904128
  • oh, some examples from information theory—can't encode a 10-bit number in 1 bit, can't decrypt blah blah without blah blah

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
  • meta-memetic principles of the NNTD

NNTD pith instructions discussion

• It can be hard to give quick general instructions for NNTD for a few reasons.
  • Most immediately, there's no way to communicate correctly or incorrectly - there's just what works in context and what doesn't work.
    • This in itself could be considered a pith instruction for NNTD, since it points at the flaw with any technique or process or mindset that claims that if you do it correctly and someone doesn't vibe with it, then there's sort of nothing you can do and they need to change. This flaw is what makes a protocol not a meta-protocol.
    • With this in mind, one might say: try to establish and build trust as best you can, and whereever that breaks down, no matter how frustrating or annoying or unnecessary the obstacle seems to be, find a way to see the breakdown as necessary for the trust you're building to be non-naive. ie that obstacle is letting you know that something is missing
  • There's also something about how NNTD is in some ways more view than it is method. trust-dancing is an element of all human interactions (tbh, interactions with animals as well, and arguably human-corporation interactions too) and the NNTD framework illuminates the basic physics of how trust works
    • for instance:
      • any way in which someone does not trust me is a way in which they can't trust me (without some additional data or experience they don't currently have)
        • even if it seems that I trust myself in this way, I don't know what their actual trust landscape looks like

• 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

September 5th, 2021

• I'm thinking more about my Sequence on NNTD and about this:
  • I feel like some of what I'm trying to say would benefit from introduction to the mindset & cultural platform shift post talking about the H2/H3 distinction, but it's extremely slippery and could so easily veer into thinking that rejects other thinking. And there's something very potent about pointing at these general principles as they apply to everyone, not getting fixated on the implications for people at the very leading edge of group coherence stuff. Those people will probably be able to see how this stuff all applies to their work anyway.
    • and I had a few ideas:
      • 1. make 2-3 separate lists of which topics in the current sequence list require certain context/prereqs
        • for instance, these ones are kind of clearly looking at the extreme cases, or are kind of only answering a question that would be posed by people trying to do a whole cultural platform shift
          • trust-building frameworks must be symmetric
          • trust-building frameworks must simultaneously be trustworthiness-learning frameworks
          • and commitment/choice is a confused way to relate to stances/mindsets is kind of on that level too
        • whereas things like these could be of general interest:
          • complaints are sacred: how we affirm our values
          • sometimes things need to be said even though they feel like they really really should go without saying
      • 2. for each of these pieces, explore writing it up for a few different audiences (I was initially just thinking 2 but I guess there are many)
        • me-of-2-3-years-ago
        • Jean & LSA specifically
        • folks in the outer circle around LSA
        • Jordan Hall & other leading edge thinkers
        • tcot / non-coercion twitter
        • someone who's read most of the rest of my blog posts but no other particular context
        • companies trying to do advanced culture stuff

September 4th, 2021

• looking at Sequence on NNTD
  • saw this page: how my thinking has transcended the Upstart "Commitments & Assumptions"
    • started reviewing an old doc “H3” & “NNTD” as specific protocols & meta-protocols
      • it's so good but it's so high context, like I kinda want to share it just internally to the Upstart scene, because it would be hard to parse for people just reading my blog
      • there's a whole thing about how to give that context in general for all of what I want to write
      • that's part of why the 2020: Free to Dance yearly review post was so good, because it was easy for it to situate everything
    • looking at What's the deal doc (another unpublished piece of writing, from August 29th, 2020)
      • and this obviously can't be published as is, but has a lot of juicy material on
        • deliberate "negative reinforcement" is punishment even if you don't call it that
        • compartmentalization has important implications for interpersonal trust
        • safety is vital for mindset learning
        • reorganization
        • patterns as resource / everything makes sense / PCK
    • I guess that the piece of writing on how my thinking has transcended the Upstart "Commitments & Assumptions", steelmanning them at the same time, would be a really useful context piece for what the culture is pointing at
    • both the C&As and the circles maps are CC BY-NC-SA, so I have permission to remix them although whatever I'd be creating would need to also be CC licensed
      • man, the circles are so good, but presenting them tends so strongly towards reifying a dualistic H2 vs H3 frame which in turn results in thinking that rejects other thinking
    • re-reading The Circles Maps
      • hm I want to figure out what to do with "good" & "bad"
        • See on good and bad from Mark Lippmann's meditation protocol
      • yeah, this is broadly quite good (lol)
  • started working a bit on post-blame apology, writing up a sort of blog post draft there
    • feeling a bit stuck/bleh/whatever there though
    • lemme quickly make sure to note down all thoughts I have briefly though before they're gone
  • I'm thinking that a good next showtime might actually be the NNTD pith instructions discussion
    • since like the ITD case studies, it's a simple introduction and it's situated and real

• tracing how Mark Lippmann influenced NNTD
  • some resonance with this and the obstacle is the way
    • > It can be really discouraging when progress seems state dependent (“if only I were in that other state!“), but taking correct actions, as best one can, in any state, is the thing that metabolizes, over a long time, whatever state one happens to be in (and part of that is fully accepting being in the state, if/eventually/when it’s safe to do so).
      
      Like, the state IS the very stuff of practice, not a thing in the background that conditions practice.

September 2nd, 2021

• tracing how Mark Lippmann influenced NNTD
  • something about the layering model
    • which has a lot of implications for interpersonal stuff and is part of why and how blindspot feedback is hard (but possible!)
  • something about losslessness, which doesn't mean perfect memory but there's something about how if you're dealing with an issue in the present, then there's necessarily enough (and the right) data present to satisfyingly untangle it (given enough time and attention)
    • which has been impressively borne out in my experience on interpersonal stuff
    • something like "if you know something, you necessarily know why you know it"
  • > There’s a few broad failure modes that can happen when seeking this ok-ness (if you decide to do so, and it’s ok if you do or don’t, or start and stop, or take a break and pick it up again, later. In no way is it separate from "normal ok-ness.").
    • from ok-ness and cosmology
    • this feels like it's embodying something like sometimes things need to be said even though they feel like they really really should go without saying
      • and in particular, there's a tone of reassurance here that is uncommon
        • it could easily read as passive-aggressive or neurotic, and I'm not even 100% sure it isn't, but it's still a very different stance than the defensiveness = protectiveness anti-reassurance one that I sometimes held prior to discovering the NNTD

August 27th, 2021

• okay, I'm setting aside a few hours for NNTD writing
  • I've pulled up a blog post draft I started a few weeks ago called "NNTD - why the name?"
    • and there's some good stuff in there, but I'm not really excited about having it be the next thing that goes out about the NNTD
    • so I think it makes sense to shelve it for now
  • NNTD pith instructions discussion

• SimPol as large-scale NNTD relates to trust-building is fundamentally the same process on all scales (internal, between individuals, between groups):
  • oh damn, listening to Jim Rutt Show w the SimPol guy (John Bunzl) and I'm struck by the resonances between SimPol & NNTD

August 14th, 2021

• Notes on Malcolm Ocean - Internal Trust-Dancing - internal NNTD - internal conflict - Working with conflict - Parts work - Internal Double Crux - courage and defensiveness
  • Malcolm blog post: malcolmocean.com/2021/08/internal-trust-dancing-date-scheduling-cancel…
  • Notes August 25th, 2021
    • two-chair work (a different practice, perhaps relevant)
    • in coherence therapy, it's often letting the clients stumble into it - can be useful (bc the surprise is... spontaneous?) - and also sometimes slow
    • M: "I respect that you don't trust me" doesn't generally arise spontaneously
    • M is engaging with the parts less as "beings" and more as "perspectives" or frames
      • practice of perspective-taking / multidimensional perspective
      • frame bridging... frame dialogue
      • non-empathic perspective-taking
        • not anti-empathic, but on a different... intellectual/structural level? rather than compassion-based or "what would it feel like" but -- what does the world look like from that point of view
  • Notes August 15th, 2021 on what this process is about, what it's for, how to describe purpose & structure
    • M > non-empathetic perspective taking
      • structural perspective-taking
      • not NOT empathetic, but not requiring empathy
    • M > It's not trying to sort out what's going on deep down for the parts. It's creating a context that's conducive to them listening to each other and being able to make sense of it together.
      • Creating the capacity for them to talk to each other
    • M > Without sorting out ANY of the object-level details, if we can change the overall stance that the parts are able to take towards each other, then there could be a basis for bringing our creativity to bear on sorting out what's going on, rather than fighting or giving up.
    • (EMS talking about moves that don't break the container of the game... re Finite and Infinite Games)
    • M > This process is aiming towards Juxtaposition ; it's just that what's being juxtaposed is bigger & messier than just a couple of statements
      • you're juxtaposing two vantage points until they parallax
    • S > you had some levels of reconciliation...? one was "I see how anyone in your position couldn't have done anything different"...?
    • -----
    • S > In this ITD process, you're taking a situation that was previously a double bind, and removing the blocks to talking about it!
      • removing the meta-level blocks to metacommunication!
        • M > That ^ is the only problem! #koan
        • S > Yeah, everything else can work itself out over time...
  • Steps!
    • [note this is for two parts in conflict - the person is more consciously identified with Part 1, and less with Part 2]
    • Internal differentiation
      • M > throughout this whole period I have one main purpose, and that purpose is internal differentiation - encouraging the parts to distinguish themselves from each other and recognize their part-ness
        • S > ...seeing how sticky it is to blend & unblend? Blending
        • M > No -- Faith told me not to use the word unblending for this. She said within IFS it's a technical term and specifically means "unblending into Self"
        • What I'm encouraging is for the parts to differentiate from each other and become aware of their part-ness
        • S > Oh, that they are each a part and not the whole
        • M > "internal differentiation"... a necessary prereq of internal trust dancing is differentiating, being able to have a conversation
      • [Symptom identification]
        • This is common to Coherence Therapy, and Core Transformation
        • < copy in first unrecorded bit from Malcolm notes >
      • Identify which part the person is more consciously identified with at the moment (Part 1)
        • Consciously identified with "I want to go on the date"... but predict that another part will cancel
      • Check for subjective recall: "Do you remember what it felt like, when [this conflict happened]...?"
        • You're checking for subjective recall, and not needing to get them deeply into it
        • M: Do you remember what it felt like, the last time you cancelled a date, when you were in the headspace where it made sense to you, to cancel?
        • Notes
          • S > there's that bit from the intro of the Core Transformation script... maybe that and the somatic stuff is more trance-like than what you're aiming for?
            • M > I don't think it's intrinsically needed, for them to be in their body for this INNTD process, but if a part needs that it'll let us know
          • (person might say "no", which would indicate dissociation)
            • Malcolm said "strong dissociation"; I said that if they didn't remember the event, that would be strong, but not remembering how it FELT is a pretty common level of dissociation
            • M, example script > that suggests that the part of you that made the decision to cancel the date is not one you have access to right now, from your current vantage point
            • M > but let's just take a moment and acknowledge that such a part exists
            • (I'm inviting the client to experience coherence empathy, not on the content, but just that there's a part or pattern that's doing a thing for a reason - there's some other sense-making that's occurring, that's outputting this behavior that doesn't make sense to you)
          • person might also give an "external" description - eg, I was in a funk all day, I cancelled the date, got drunk, and went to bed.
            • M > I would do approx the same thing as above, "there's a part of you that..."
      • Invite awareness of Part 2, that finds symptom necessary: "...when you were in the headspace where [behavior] made sense to you?
        • M: Do you remember what it felt like, the last time you cancelled a date, when you were in the headspace where it made sense to you, to cancel?
        • Notes
          • M > I'm taking stock of who's here
      • Perspective-taking, reversed - from Part 2, how do you feel toward Part 1?
        • M: In that mode, how did you feel toward the part of you that booked the date?
        • Notes
          • From the perspective that was not initially dominant / not egosyntonic - how did you feel toward the dominant / more identified part?
      • Invite awareness of Part 1
        • M: Currently, are you looking forward to the date on Saturday, in principle?
      • Perspective-taking - from Part 1, how do you feel toward Part 2?"
        • M: What does it feel like, from here, to imagine a version of you on Friday, who is pissed at current-you?
    • Getting on the same meta-page
      • This meta level involves:
        • Getting on the same page about the extent to which we're on the same page
        • Getting on the same page about what's preventing us from getting on the same page
      • Notes August 15th, 2021 about what it means to "get on the same page"
        • S > On a more "object" level (the level of the symptom, or the thought / feeling / behavior that's in conflict), getting on the same page would involve:
          • A shared / coherent understanding of each part's viewpoint - what features of the situation matter to each part, what each part is seeing about those features, and what each part is wanting in relation to those features
          • From there, deciding how to navigate the situation as a whole person, including what "bets" to make (and maybe also what to do "in the meantime")
        • M > If we're on the same page, then we share a sense of what the next course of action is, or we agree we don't know
      • Notes August 14th, 2021
        • M > "trust-building via same-sidedness"
        • S > checking for resonance... overt statement?
        • M > Common ground
        • S > establishing whether the conflict is a functional or functionless symptom
          • is it important to part 1 that part 2 is upset
          • M > 90+% of the time it's not, and it makes a surprisingly big difference to say so
        • M > getting on the same meta-page, which is getting on the same page about the extent to which we're on the same page
      • Same-sidedness, 1 to 2:
        Does it feel true, from Part 1, to say to Part 2, "I'm not trying to make you feel [bad]"?
        • M: Does it feel true, from the perspective of your current mode, does it feel true to say to the other part, I don't want you to feel anxious and sad? Like, I'm not trying to make you feel anxious and sad
        • If it doesn't feel true
          • H: No. It's more like, I don't care what you're going to feel
          • Check if there's a way to rephrase that describes non-hostility - is it true that Part 2's suffering is unnecessary for what Part 1 wants?
            • M: It might feel true to say, "For what it's worth, I'm not scheduling these dates for the purpose of making you feel sad and anxious. I'm doing it for some other reason."
          • If Part 2's suffering does seem necessary, consider checking "what does that get you?"
            • S > Is something deeper or more important that Part 1 wants, through Part 2 feeling bad?
            • S > (This is a move from Core Transformation - don't have to go through that whole sequence, though. It's also Goal Factoring)
            • M > In NNTD language, I'd invite the part to say: "I, Part 1, don't trust that if I don't cause [some sort of problem] for Part 2, that I'll be able to meet my needs."
            • S > From there, I'd say... get clear on what those needs are, and invite Part 2 to say something like, "Part 1, I want [your needs] to be met, in a way that's compatible with my wellbeing"
            • M > You may not need to know what the needs are, and that might be easier... "I, Part 2, wish you no harm and would like all your needs to be met, whatever they are, subject to my needs being met."
            • M > bc we're not actually negotiating here
        • If yes, or equivalent rephrase, move to next
          • M: It might feel true to say, "For what it's worth, I'm not scheduling these dates for the purpose of making you feel sad and anxious. I'm doing it for some other reason."
          • H: That feels true, yeah.
      • Check:
        Does it feel true, for Part 2, to receive that from Part 1?
        • M: Cool. Now I'm going to ask if you can get in touch with the other perspective. Do you buy it? Do you think that part is for real?
        • Notes
          • If no...
            • see H: No, it doesn't trust it. It's the same feeling, the feeling of, "that doesn't matter, that's bullshit." So there's no feeling of trust there, no.
          • M > I'd be on the lookout for "not trusting the process," which would need a meta-level interpersonal NNTD...
      • Same-sidedness, 2 to 1:
        Does it feel true, from Part 2, to say to Part 1, "I'm not thwarting you just for spite; there's something important I'm caring for. And I want your needs to be met, in a way that's compatible with my needs.
        • So if you get in touch with the part that has been cancelling the dates, and say, "Does it feel true to say to the other part, something like, "I'm not thwarting you just for spite. There's something important to what I'm caring for here. I want whatever you're trying to do with these dates to be satisfied; it's just got to be somehow different."
      • Check:
        Does it feel true, for Part 1, to receive that from Part 2?
        • M: And the part that's scheduling the dates, does it trust that, from the date-canceller?
        • If no, find and articulate the nature of the distrust
          • H: No, it doesn't trust it. It's the same feeling, the feeling of, "that doesn't matter, that's bullshit." So there's no feeling of trust there, no.
          • M: Ok, cool. So I'm going to invite the date-anticipator part to say to the other part, something like, "I don't trust that your reasons matter."
          • M > In this example, we've changed an assertion of "that doesn't matter," to "I don't trust that your reasons matter."
          • M > We've moved where the negation is, from "it is the case that your reasons don't matter," to "it is not the case that I can trust that your reasons matter."
          • M > In Wilden: in logic, "not not X" = X, but this is not true in language... Are you mad? -- I'm not NOT mad...
          • M > delicate frame dialogue... there's a thing it would feel like for me to trust X; I don't feel that
          • M > Core NNTD principle: you can't trust what you can't trust
        • If yes, or equivalent rephrase, move to next
      • Completion of "Getting on the same meta-page"
        • This meta level involves:
          • Getting on the same page about the extent to which we're on the same page
          • Getting on the same page about what's preventing us from getting on the same page
        • M > H's utterance is a really clear sign of progress towards Getting on the same meta-page:
          • M: Ok, cool. So I'm going to invite the date-anticipator part to say to the other part, something like, "I don't trust that your reasons matter."
          • H: Yeah, that's why we have this, that's the thing, that's the conflict. It seems very real.
          • you have 2 parts agreeing not just that they have a problem, but what the problem is, in some sense
          • note that it's not so much about "agreement" here but about co-perception or something
          • S > And it's not the surface-level disagreement (go on a date or not), but something deeper and more structural... like Internal Double Crux?
          • S & M > "This is what's preventing us from talking about it!"
          • S > This is the stick in the middle of the knot that's preventing it from being unravel-able
            • [missing block]
        • And here's another piece:
          • H: Yeah. It's a very shallow discussion right now. You don't care, so I won't say to you the real thing. Yeah, I don't care, so I don't even want to know the real thing. And it stops there.
          • M (reflecting that)... So they're actually in agreement there! But they're not in agreement about whether you should go on a date this week.
            • [S notes: I would also invite something like, asking the date-cancelling part, what do you think would happen if you go on a date? Imagine that, and notice what objections come up...]
        • In this case, they noticed that Part 2 was still kind of pushing away Part 1
          • S > Hmm... how does this relate to IFS / Self? It's almost like... the client can be "in Self energy" in regard to Part 1 OR Part 2... but they can't both be "in the room" at the same time?
    • Respecting distrust
      • enter this phase when A expresses distrust towards another B (Parts 1 & 2 could be in either position)
        • (which may be through a rephrase offered by the facilitator, eg M > In this example, we've changed an assertion of "that doesn't matter," to "I don't trust that your reasons matter.")
        • Which part goes first?
          • S > Having identified the thing holding the conflict in place... which part has more space to maneuver / more emotional slack / etc?
          • M > oh wait, no, can actually go into this step at any point, if distrust is expressed
      • Then, to whatever extent feels possible/good/realistic, have B embody and express "I respect that you can't trust X"
        • M: From the part that's been cancelling the dates, can you find a place from which to say, and embody: "I respect that you can't trust that my reasons matter."
        • M > If that didn't feel accessible, depending on why not, I might back up to acknowledging that A can't trust B, even if not exactly respectful
          • if that were unavailable, well.
          • I would figure that B doesn't trust that B won't lose touch with some important thing B knows, if it were to acknowledge A's reality
            • if this were an interpersonal trust-dance, this is the point at which I'd have A step aside and would turn to B and work with B to develop enough internal samesidedness and self-trust that B could make such a move
              • courage and defensiveness is a great approach here
            • it occurs to me though that this could just also totally apply at the scale of a sub-person part, and there might be a similar move to do there
              • I would figure that B doesn't trust that B won't lose touch with some important thing B knows, if it were to acknowledge A's reality
            • so yeah, I might encourage an overt statement from B saying "I don't trust that if I acknowledge A's reality that I won't lose something I know"
            • and likely something in here would give B the capacity to do that
          • there's also I guess something somewhat more specific that could be going on here though, and might be the blocker here in the vast majority of cases
            • which is basically that B might not feel that these are compatible:
              • {B trusting Bself (in this particular way)}
              • {A not trusting B (in this particular way)}
            • which points at a failure of differentiation, I guess!
            • S > this is also a Cognitive dissonance thing... if 2 incompatible things are trying to occupy the same space, it feels BAD... that's (I think) a main contributor to Compartmentalization in the first place. Especially if there's also a meta-level block to communication, making it a double bind
              • (aside: something about, Cognitive dissonance and Compartmentalization is one side of a process, and Expanded awareness + Juxtaposition + reconsolidation is the other side)
            • S> So I guess one move is... ah, not just a differentiation between parts ( / people) but differentiation in ideaspace
            • M > yes yes yes! whether you trust me and whether I trust me are completely different questions
            • S > but they get mushed together if someone has had a frame of "trustworthy or not"
            • S > hmm, this flavor of Self-trust stuff seems particularly likely to come up with Echoism and solar plexus issues... ways in which other people's perspectives about me feel more real than my own. Often childhood / Attachment Theory stuff
              • M > Introjection...?
              • S > Can also touch into Annihilatory panic
        • having gotten an acknowledgement but not a respect for a distrust, I'd explore something about non-naiveness
          • like, does it seem true to B that someone can't trust what it can't trust, and asking them to somehow trust it anyway is asking them to pretend?
          • and then conveying "I respect that you aren't pretending to trust me" or something... "I'm not asking you to betray yourself"
          • or it might be this again - there's also I guess something somewhat more specific that could be going on here though, and might be the blocker here in the vast majority of cases
          • oh and there might be a move then available, after trying to work through some of this for B, of getting A to embody & express respect that B doesn't have space to make this move
  • [Approximate transcript, structural more than verbatim]
  • < copy in first unrecorded bit from Malcolm notes >
  • Consciously identified with "I want to go on the date"... but predict that another part will cancel
  • I feel frustrated. I know that I'll regret not going.
  • M: Do you remember what it felt like, the last time you cancelled a date, when you were in the headspace where it made sense to you, to cancel?
  • H: I was anxious and sad. Anxious bc I had a weird feeling "I have to cancel"... sad not because I was cancelling, but some other reason. Idk why I was sad
  • M: In that mode, how did you feel toward the part of you that booked the date?
  • H: Angry! Like I was crazy for doing that. I shouldn't have done that.
  • M: Why not?
  • H: Because now I'm anxious and sad, and I blame that part.
  • M: Currently, are you looking forward to the date on Saturday, in principle?
  • H: Yeah
  • M: What does it feel like, from here, to imagine a version of you on Friday, who is pissed at current-you?
  • H: Avoidance... I don't want to become like that
  • M: Does it feel true, from the perspective of your current mode, does it feel true to say to the other part, I don't want you to feel anxious and sad? Like, I'm not trying to make you feel anxious and sad
  • H: No. It's more like, I don't care what you're going to feel
    • [S: I'd say, he's not in Self towards that part, in IFS terms... or like, blended with Part 1]
      • August 25th, 2021: it's actually more about how Part 1 feels toward Part 2
    • [M: Yeah, and I keep going - we don't need Part 1 to be friendly toward Part 2 in order to proceed, for trust dancing]
  • M: Well... it seems like, even if this part doesn't care how the other part feels, its own plans are getting thwarted.
    • [S:Trying to establish shared purpose?]
    • [M wants to invent fractional pronouns]
    • [Note: client name comes up around 10:50]
  • M: It might feel true to say, "For what it's worth, I'm not scheduling these dates for the purpose of making you feel sad and anxious. I'm doing it for some other reason."
  • H: That feels true, yeah.
  • M: Cool. Now I'm going to ask if you can get in touch with the other perspective. Do you buy it? Do you think that part is for real?
    • [I would've done some more like, actually getting him into the other part... memory and/or somatic...?]
    • M > I'm wanting the client to speak from kind of a gut sense... I don't feel the need to go "deeper" into feelings unless I don't trust that the part is being accurately represented / if I think the client is "guessing" more than "speaking from"
  • H: Yeah, that feels true, I buy it.
  • M: I figured that would be easy to buy... that part had already acknowledged that it doesn't care, and that's consistent with "I'm not trying to upset you; I'm not accounting for that at all."
  • M: So, there's a few different tones this conversation could take, a few different conversational moves
    • The part that's been cancelling the dates could say, "Well, you're going to need to care, bc if you want to go on these dates you'll need to sort out what's upsetting me."
    • But before making that move, it'd be good to do a same-sidedness part move from that other part's perspective.
  • So if you get in touch with the part that has been cancelling the dates, and say, "Does it feel true to say to the other part, something like, "I'm not thwarting you just for spite. There's something important to what I'm caring for here. I want whatever you're trying to do with these dates to be satisfied; it's just got to be somehow different."
  • H: Yeah, that feels true.
  • M: And the part that's scheduling the dates, does it trust that, from the date-canceller?
  • H: No, it doesn't trust it. It's the same feeling, the feeling of, "that doesn't matter, that's bullshit." So there's no feeling of trust there, no.
  • M: Ok, cool. So I'm going to invite the date-anticipator part to say to the other part, something like, "I don't trust that your reasons matter."
  • H: ... (long pause)
  • M: And I can offer some more verbose phrases, but it sounds like something's already happening.
  • H: Yeah, that's why we have this, that's the thing, that's the conflict. It seems very real.
    • [At this point, I would ask the date-anticipator, what would happen if you take date-canceller's reasons seriously? Or, imagine that you take the reasons seriously... what objections arise?]
    • M > Yeah yeah yeah! That's what you'd do if you were focused on emotional coherence type stuff
  • H: From date-canceller: That's why I do what I do - that's why I stop you.
  • M: There's two kinds of things you might mean by, "That's why I stop you."
    • Because you should care and you don't
    • Because there's factors you're not accounting for
      • S > Huhhh, M & I are having some confusion around this... I'm not understanding how some thing almost "perfectly contradicts"... it's like I would "carve reality at the joints differently?
        • "you don't care about me" vs "you're not caring for these factors"
        • caring about vs caring for
        • kind & effective on a 2x2
        • • kind and ineffective
            • kind and effective
          • cold and ineffective
            • cold and effective
  • H: I stop you because you don't care
  • M: Okay, so we've gotten to kind of the crux of the conflict. So that's interesting! Because a few minutes ago, I offered you a thing to say from date-canceller to date-anticipator:
    • So if you get in touch with the part that has been cancelling the dates, and say, "Does it feel true to say to the other part, something like, "I'm not thwarting you just for spite. There's something important to what I'm caring for here. I want whatever you're trying to do with these dates to be satisfied; it's just got to be somehow different."
  • It doesn't seem to me that that perfectly contradicts the, "I stop you because you don't care," but it's close. Then it makes sense why the other part doesn't trust this part.
    • [why Part 1 doesn't trust Part 2]
  • H: Yes.
  • M: I'm wondering if there's a way to easily articulate how those two things go together: I'm not trying to thwart you just for spite, AND there's something missing.
    • [Interesting move! Both/and...]
  • H: There is a feeling that makes sense, that I stop you because you don't care, and there's something missing, but it's really difficult to find what is...
  • M: Like, what's missing?
  • H: Yeah. It's a very shallow discussion right now. You don't care, so I won't say to you the real thing. Yeah, I don't care, so I don't even want to know the real thing. And it stops there.
  • M (reflecting that)... So they're actually in agreement there! But they're not in agreement about whether you should go on a date this week.
    • [S notes: I would also invite something like, asking the date-cancelling part, what do you think would happen if you go on a date? Imagine that, and notice what objections come up...]
      • M to S > I like what you're doing, in describing the moves you'd make if this was part-coherence first and not trust-building first
        • and those moves aren't bad or wrong, it's just a different thing from what we're doing here, and doesn't follow at this phase
        • M > You remember the initial name of Coherence Therapy?
        • S > Depth-Oriented Brief Therapy
        • M > Well, this is Breadth-Oriented--
        • S > Deef Therapy?
        • M > Lol
        • M > We're not going any deeper than both parts can go together
  • --------
  • M: From the part that's been cancelling the dates, can you find a place from which to say, and embody: "I respect that you can't trust that my reasons matter."
    • [Ohhhh Malcolm is doing the ladder-blackberries-anxiety move!! Maybe?]
    • M > Yeah, it's a move you could've made in that scene
  • M: And I'm not going to ask you to trust that they matter, if you don't have what you need to trust that.
    • [Oooh hm, that's actually a high level of abstraction / complexity right there, maybe bit far from limbic language?]
  • H: There's some kind of relief
  • M: Say more about that relief
  • H: (long pause) It's even difficult to talk about that. It's really...
    • [I would've invited something like, what's the quality of that relief, as a feeling in the body? And maybe some, "see if you can let that relief be just as big as it wants to be"]
  • H: It feels like an agreement, that doesn't make logical sense, but it feels like, yeah, when you respect that, we are together.
    • [Doesn't make logical sense -- R hemisphere involved?]
  • M: I tear up slightly when you said that. As you said, it's hard to put words to, it's so basic. It's like, "Wait, I can have my reality, though? Like, actually? I'm free to have my reality?"
  • H: Exactly.
  • H: That was really magical. When you said the sentence, it seemed like a compromise. But when I tried to embody the sentence, and that feeling, and that part, then it was different, really doing that. It was different than just hearing the sentence. It wasn't a compromise, it was a real agreement.
  • M: The words are hard, and you're doing a great job of putting into words something that's really subtle and really important. I love it, I love it!
  • H: Okay, thank you
  • M: One analogy I sometimes use for this is, if you think about your eyes... If you hold your finger up between you and the camera, and you're like, which side of my finger is the camera on? Well, both - depending on which eye you ask. So the eyes actually disagree, turns out. But the fact that they disagree is a source of tremendous information. That's how you get depth perception, is that your eyes disagree, and instead of having them argue, your brain goes, "Great, great! I'll use your perspective for this, and your perspective for that, and when I put them together, boom!"
    • [explains parallax & heterogeneous coherence & multidimensional perspective]
  • And so it's like, you've got one perspective from which it's obvious that you should go on a date.
  • H: Yeah.
  • M: And you've got one perspective from which it's obvious that you shouldn't go on a a date.
  • H: Mhm, exactly, yeah.
  • M: And, what's the 3D view? But before you can even ask, "what's the 3D view?" you need to get out of an argument.
  • H: Yeah.
  • M: I'm interested in knowing... you've done this magical move in one direction, of having the date-cancelling part respect the distrust of the date-scheduling part. I'm wondering if we can find a way to do that in the other direction. What I'm imagining the date-canceller part might say, is something like, "I don't trust that you are taking all of the necessary factors into account, on whatever level of abstraction. I don't trust that you're taking everything into account when you're scheduling these dates."
  • H: Yeah. Well, now the other part is listening. It cares now.
  • M: Wow, yeah
  • H: And now I can see what the real thing is, that the cancelling part is worried about. And it's obvious. [laughing]
  • M: And it always was! From a certain vantage point.
  • H: And it's like, you just care about scheduling this, but how are we going to feel afterwards? It's not even worried about that, it just wants the other part to take that into account. How are we going to feel after the date? Are we going to enjoy it, or...?
    • [I might go into that "or..." -- are we going to enjoy it, or...?]
  • But that was completely invisible before.
  • And that's not bad. It's not afraid of that. Just wants to take that into account, that's it.
  • M: If I were to make a guess... given that you opened this whole conversation by mentioning you had a breakup 8 months ago, my guess is that there's something about how you expect to feel that's in relation to that.
  • H: No, that makes sense, that feels true. Yeah, there is this feeling of... when you do that, that's really the end, that's the final...
    • [I'm lost...? Later: Ohhhh that's the end of the previous relationship, got it]
  • M: Wow... Oh! It's maybe something like, you've been scheduling dates without accounting for how that will feel in relation to the breakup.
  • H: Mhm, yes. And again, that seems obvious now, but...
  • M: Cool. Well, it sounds like maybe this move is going to look a bit different, and is in some sense less needed, but still beautiful and worthwhile to make some form of it...
  • The date-canceller part was like, "I don't trust that you're taking everything into account when scheduling these dates." And you said, "so now the other part is listening." And implicit in the fact that it's listening, is some respect or regard for the other part, as opposed to "your reasons don't matter," which was there before.
  • Wanting to make sure the date-canceller part can experience that same relief of, "I can have my reality."
    • [Wait, did you mean you want the date-scheduler to have that relief...?]
  • H: Exactly. (long pause)
  • Every time that I get to the point of, "I can have my reality," there is a relief.
    • Bessel van der Kolk quote re: trauma...
      • "Healing from trauma amounts to learning that it's okay to know what you know and feel what you feel"
  • M: Yeah. People have no idea the extent to which so much of human conversation is conducted in a way that is saying, "No, you don't get to have your reality," both internally and interpersonally. It's near constant, and it's such a basic thing that it doesn't even occur to us usually how important it is to say, "You can have your reality. It's different from mine, and you can have it."
    • [Well, of course - because absent heterogeneous coherence, you have to have either homogenous coherence, or heterogeneous IN-coherence! Like either one of us has to lose, or we both lose the ability to make sense together -- if there's not this multiperspectival / parallax move available. Postmodern relativism one of failure modes of heterogeneous incoherence... becomes useless! "You can have your reality, it's different from mine, and you can have it" -- could end up as a standoff]
  • And that's in part because we don't trust that others are going to let us have our reality. But then one of the most self-grounding moves can be saying, "I've got a different reality, but also I respect that you've got yours."
  • And I'm still learning to do that myself, both internally and with other people. Literally just yesterday, someone said a thing to me, and I said, "That's not how I see it!" And ten seconds later I was like, ahhh, what was that? But that comes from the fear that I'm going to have to negate my reality!
  • I'm afraid that my left eye will really convince the right eye that the finger really is on the other side of the camera.
  • This is why I'm seriously wondering if it's worth having a fractional pronoun.
  • So, you've got a date scheduled for this Saturday.
  • H: Yes
  • M: How does that sit now?
  • H: You know, it's natural. That's how it feels. At the same time, there is the part that was previously cancelling the thing, "Ok, just don't forget me. Consider what it's going to mean to your previous relationship." And the other part's not saying now, "I don't care." It's saying, "Yeah, okay, let's do that. Let's see how it goes." Which is interesting.
  • I still have that worry, I still think about that, consider that.
  • M: The two parts haven't merged. They're still bringing different...
  • H: Exactly. But there is no, "I'm going to stop that, I'm going to stop you," as before.
  • M: Mhm! Both now and in that moment, in the days coming up to the date - which I'm sure will still feel like something. One thing you could do, is you could now ask yourself... because it might not be this part... it sounds like this part is standing up for some other part, there's a kind of mediator quality. Ask your whole system, what do we need to do to be ready for this date, emotionally? Is there more letting go that needs to happen, in relation to the former partner? I could imagine somebody going to a bridge where they had a date, and dropping something into the water - that's just one example.
    • [I like the ritual suggestion!]
  • Saying to your system, "whatever is wanted here, let's do it!" And maybe you can't do that thing before this Saturday, and maybe you need to cancel Saturday's date, but now you're oriented to a process rather than just an oscillation.
  • The other thing you could do is invite this part that was previously cancelling the date, can you speak up first? Can we talk about this, before cancelling the date?
    • [49 min: "Malcolm try not to shout" lolllll]
  • H: It's the same thing, there's this need for talking again, have this conversation again, listen again. It's different because, before the scheduler didn't care. And now it understands, maybe he wants to cancel again, this is fine, but let's have the conversation. At the same time, it respects, maybe it's not the time for the other part and it wants to cancel again.
  • M: Wow!
  • H: Mhm. Yeah, there's a huge shift.
  • M: Well, that's pretty cool. I've used this technique w/ other people 3 or 4 times now, and it works way better than I was expecting
  • H: That was unbelievable for me. It feels really magical. And I've had some experience with parts work... was never so impactful, so fast, so direct as that.
  • M: Cool. [discussing use of video & transcript]
  • M: Oh! You said you tried to do this on your own... I'm curious where you got stuck?
  • H: I got stuck at the beginning, really. I could sense these two parts, but I couldn't even make them talk to each other.
  • M [talking about an experience of trying to self-facilitate, calling a friend, wondering if there's a way to scaffold self-facilitation with writing prompts or an app]
  • M [there's another thing that might come up with a part distrusting this whole practice itself]

August 1st, 2021

• I'm thinking about the Sequence on NNTD and what to write next, and I'm wondering if it might make sense to start with some basics!
  • like basically
    • what is non-naive trust and why is that important?
      • and maybe critique that post of Chloe's that says "assume trust"
    • why trust-dancing as a frame?
    • a bit about the meta-protocol to make it clear what level this is trying to be on

July 26th, 2021

• Sequence on NNTD
  • operationalizing 100% co-response-ability
  • doing difference differently
  • same-sidedness
    • maybe just being on the same side & being on truth's side
      • it seems to me that this one has something to do with in the meantime / in the limit
    • maybe something else?

July 20th, 2021

• M > NNTD is basically attempting to answer the question "given emotional coherence & memory reconsolidation, what does that imply about human relationships and how we would go about forming highly workable relationships for life and love and learning and working?"

July 3rd, 2021

• talking with Mark Lippmann & Jonathan Leung about NNTD and layering
  • Malcolm > blindspot
  • Mark > layering = any change to system that locks in existing system organization, blocking further change and occludes layers underneath
    • subset = counteractive layering
      • change that's made is in opposition to the layers below
    • Mark > IFS is almost purely for dealing with counteractive layering, so is Feeding Your Demons
      • buddhist "fabrications" seem to map almost 1-to-1 with layering
      • talking about "right effort" - "wrong effort" = layering
  • system blindspots at all scales
    • Mark > writing about domain-specific knowledge
      • a single system can find everything up to the data it's collected
      • Mal > do you think it's possible to collect enough data to be confused about something, but not enough to understand it?
        • Mark > yeah. gets stuck in agnostic state
          • then you have to go out in the world and get more data (deliberately or serendipitously/intuitively)
    • J > circling has a bunch of cool blindspot feedback
      • Mal > and thus a lot of layering?
        • probably depends somewhat but seems likely
        • J > yes, definitely
          • especially since people try to copy teacher moves, while not being as awake/compassionate
  • J > Domain Focusing: focusingnow.com/domain-focusing-self-guiding-form/
    • https://focusingnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/self-guiding_form_2019a.pdf
    • includes checking if move safe
      • full-fractal buy-in

non-naive trust dance

• see NNTD

core principles of the NNTD

• see also "meta-memetic principles of the NNTD", ie "principles for how to relate to the concept of the NNTD"

June 27th, 2021

• working on Sequence on NNTD

• 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

• meta-memetic principles of the NNTD

• more speculative writing on NNTD (as contrasted with generalized principles that I feel very confident in)
  • August 3rd, 2020 re differences in learning trajectory for people depending on whether they've historically been more inward-blame or outward-blame
    • There's something that I feel I uniquely understand as someone who has taken a lot of responsibility for causing tangles over the last few years... I feel I understand something about how taking responsibility for creating tangles or causing pain doesn't mean blaming yourself or that others are blaming you.
      • continuing to feel like I have a perspective on this that's relatively unique among many of the people I've been involved with, and vital not just for integrating other men or power-over-history people, but also for the effective use of power in the existing system
    • I think that those who come from a more internal-blame perspective can get much further in this work without acknowledging that to the same degree…?
    • Things that could be described as not just like, inward mindset or judger mindset but like "your patterns hurt people" or "people can't trust you" which seems maybe harder to take in.
    • I'm thinking about observing people have a flinchy "I/we didn't do anything wrong" response to someone's disappointment or frustration… that didn't seem to be curious about like:
      • What was his experience?
      • What could we learn from that?
      • How can this help me see my own blindspots?
    • If "I/we didn't do anything wrong" was as obvious to you as it is within a grounded post-blame mindset, then there's no need to even assert it. The assertion of it comes from a fear that that won't be obvious—an active maintenance of a non-blame frame in opposition to a fear of blame.

June 14th, 2021

• thinking about NNTD and some sense in which it only sorta tells you what will work... mostly tells you what won't work
  • that's not necessarily true on balance but it's an interesting frame
    • and it relates to this there's no way to communicate correctly or incorrectly - there's just what works in context and what doesn't work
      • ah yeah, and that page title sentence is almost wiser than it knows - it's not "what works and doesn't work, in context", it's "what works in context, and what doesn't work [ever]"
      • the "ever" bit is interesting, like obviously someone could disprove that with a single example, but part of what's going on here is that if I saw something purporting to be such an example, I'd have a high prior that what's going on is actually some kind of compartmentalization/layering/naive trust
      • could of course be wrong about that but yeah
      • and some things are more thoroughly written off as "not gonna work" by NNTD than others
        • improbable and impossible-[according to this model] are different

June 9th, 2021

• great articulation of everything makes sense; relevant to NNTD & symptom coherence+coherence empathy
  • twitter.com/dailectic/status/1399905014181662721
  • twitter.com/Malcolm_Ocean/status/1375143892442476546

May 23rd, 2021

• Okay, I'm trying to figure out what next blogpost showtime to do, as part of my larger project of writing up a whole Sequence on NNTD
  • One major candidate is Everyone is basically living in a dream mashup of their current external situation & old emotional meanings
    • the version of it I would want to write now... touches on a lot of NNTD-related themes
    • the case for publishing it now
      • it could be a good chance to give each of those themes a very short treatise
      • it's hot, it's got a shelf-life
    • the case for waiting to publish it
      • then I'll be able to actually cite more of those other themes
      • the post will potentially be very popular, especially since visakanv wants to link to it a bunch, and that'll be a higher-leverage thing if/when there's already a bunch of other NNTD posts
  • I think I'm concluding I don't want to wait to publish it but that it would be cool to publish it like 5th, and kinda queue up the other posts beforehand
  • One open question re the sequence is something like...
    • do I want to try writing a piece about where I think we're going? I mean I think that would be cool to write about the NNTD
      • I guess the the union of wisdom instead of the union of naivety bit would be about that
      • and I'd want to include something about the thing of like assuming we get there, what needed to happen along the way?
  • Okay, what are the other posts I would be queuing up? How do I order these? Sequence+standalone is a weird sort of medium
  • at least some a lot of the other posts would want to reference the dream mashups one
    • eg Instead of "X is Y", say "I can't tell the difference between X & Y"
    • I think the validity of projection - it's not about you but it's not not about you is a pretty core one that wants to be written before dream mashups
    • I could try making a diagram of all of these... hm
    • am I ready to write up the validity of projection - it's not about you but it's not not about you?
    • I think I want to post something I've already tweeted
    • I don't have a list of threads anywhere, hm
    • ahh I have a blindspot feedback is hard (but possible!) thread that could become a #blogpost
      • twitter.com/Malcolm_Ocean/status/1391959685851324421
      • oh, it references collective blindspots, which probably should have a page - collective blindspots naturally occur in groups
        • / every entity has a blindspot at all fractal scales

Sequence on NNTD

• NNTD pith instructions discussion

• NNTD can help with he said she said dynamics

May 22nd, 2021

• Wanting to write a Sequence on NNTD

April 18th, 2021

• this thread may have stuff relevant to NNTD & Dimensions of Trust-Dancing
  • twitter.com/RichDecibels/status/1383865494147457029

April 14th, 2021

• very cool exercise for exquisite interpersonal calibration / proactive NNTD
  • Relationship exercise idea: write about a vacation or similar that you took together
    • Independently, without showing each other until you're done

April 9th, 2021

• Dimensions of Trust-Dancing - NNTD
  • (these all mutually support each other but they can be different levels of depth)
  • the 5 components of secure attachment
    • safety
    • attunement
    • comfort / physical affection
    • unconditional delight in your existence
    • unconditional support for your explorations
  • "trusting that the other person will listen to you for as long as you need, in whatever way you & they both need, in order for you to feel heard about something that matters to you to be heard about"
  • also other things, some of which are less relevant to a parent-child relationship
    • falling in love (has a specific flavor)
    • sexual seduction
    • sense of shared purpose
      • "let's found a company together"
  • sense of cultural commonalities/touchstones

March 23rd, 2021

• very relevant to NNTD - in the meantime

Home

• but needs a larger meta-frame like the NNTD to hold it
  • otherwise in some low-trust situations it devolves into frame battles that can't easily be talked about within the frame of NVC

March 14th, 2021

• trust & NNTD & geopolitics
  • The Road from Galwan: The Future of India-China Relations

• I have a hunch that this article by Werner Erhard & Michael C. Jensen about integrity and expectations is very very relevant to the NNTD, and that in fact the descriptive nature of it may make it actually the closest rigorous thing to the NNTD in a particular direction.
  • Putting Integrity Into Finance: A Purely Positive Approach
  • > We summarize our new positive theory of integrity that has no normative content, (positive as used here is from the discipline of economics – it does not mean something good or desirable, it means the way the world actually is and operates) and argue that there are large gains from putting integrity into finance – into both the theory and practice of finance. We define integrity as being whole and complete and unbroken. We argue that if finance scholars, teachers and practitioners take this approach to applications in finance there are huge gains to be achieved.
  • twitter.com/Malcolm_Ocean/status/1100775171676389377
  • twitter.com/Malcolm_Ocean/status/1100775629144969217

March 13th, 2021

• this bit really resonates with NNTD
  • > We don’t immediately realize how different we are from each other.
  • > Sometimes we surprise each other with our actions: “How could they do that?” Or, “That doesn’t make sense!” Or, “That makes sense, in retrospect.”
  • > Sometimes we surprise each other with our words: “I wouldn’t have put it that way.” Or, “That’s an interesting way to put it.” Or, “What do you mean by that?”

• conversation that connected to NNTD
  • meta-communication necessary to escape double binds
    • but also if metacomms limited then there may be yet further double binds that can't be escaped
    • and also, can use meta-style communication to instantiate double binds

March 10th, 2021

• relevant to NNTD
  • > I resonated with a lot in this (unassuming but powerful) thread about contradictory values, and the paradigmatic pattern of interlocking pushback that emerges when proclaiming one of them superlative rather than admitting the inherent tension
    • twitter.com/uncatherio/status/1367334465215733762

March 9th, 2021

• oh damn, listening to Jim Rutt Show w the SimPol guy (John Bunzl) and I'm struck by the resonances between SimPol & NNTD
  • the whole thing where there's no regulator at international scales
    • this is also true of interpersonal relationships, which aren't bound by a clear regulator of rules!
    • and there's kind of a correspondence between the H2/powerunder/CPTSD/GameA social dynamics and the Destructive Global Capitalism thing Bunzl talks about
  • multiple dimensions of tradeoffs so there isn't just winners & losers but able to balance it all out & incorporate different dimensions
  • and there's a kind of fractal buy-in thing going on, although it's not actually full-fractal buy-in per se? more like Converting Moloch from Sith to Jedi

Malcolm podcast appearances

• talks about NNTD obviously, and about community & what might a healthy community look like?

March 8th, 2021

• re NNTD, a friend was pointing at how sometimes people acknowledge there's an issue, but in a way that kind of deflects
  • I replied:
    • My better template-phrasing for this, while recognizing no template is ever adequate and all can be goodharted, is like:
      • > okay, glad you shared that. I don't know what it is you're seeing, just based on that level of description, that you're referring to, but I trust you're referring to something, and that unless we get mutual clarity on that we won't be able to fully trust each other.

March 7th, 2021

• This tweet is relevant to NNTD feedback loops conversations, although wouldn't necessarily phrase like this:
  • > 6/ Here's two clarifications, that help me feel safe when getting feedback, that I wish I'd know earlier:
  • > [1] What kind of comment is this (from least important to most) 💬?
    
    • A) 😐 Neutral observation
    • B) 😕 This hurt me, but you are not at fault (be with me, or just so you know)
    • C) 😓 I need/prefer your behaviour to change in future
    • D) ❌ You are coming across as a bad actor, who does not take my needs into account here.
  • I think my main issue with the above is that it's still kind of in a blame frame
  • I might frame them instead as
    • A) 😐 Neutral observation
      • I don't have any particular PCT Error here
    • B) 😕 This hurt me, but you are not at fault (be with me, or just so you know)
      • B = I'm hurting/PCT Erroring from this but it's not related to you; I just want you to listen & be with me
    • B↔C = This thing you did caused some minor PCT Error in my system, but I don't think it would be useful for you to try to change to
    • C) 😓 I need/prefer your behaviour to change in future
      • There is some PCT Error in my system related to this thing you did that I can't settle for. Something needs to change.
    • D) ❌ You are coming across as a bad actor, who does not take my needs into account here.
      • You having done this has created a substantial drop in my trust of you as someone who would account for my needs, and we need to

March 6th, 2021

• NNTD

February 22nd, 2021

• If you listen to it, I'd really appreciate if you reflected to me what you got from it, including wtf you think the NNTD is after listening, so that I can have a gauge of whether it makes:
  • (A) any sense at all
  • (B) the same sense to other people that it makes to me

• 1/4 I listened to this episode and it was interesting. Here's my attempt.
  
  What I understood the NNTD to be is a way of getting to places in relationship with others that feel good.

February 20th, 2021

• I was thinking about NVC last night and how it relates to Bio-Emotive and NNTD...
  • and had a sense of like, yeah, in the context of trying to do observation-feeling-need-request, there's value in having the feeling be relatively meaning-neutral (eg "sad" rather than eg "abandoned") because it's a kind of weak frame and thus avoids a frame battle in the context of trying to get to the satisfying resolution of the request.
  • it's very important however to be able to explore and unpack those meaning-laden feeling-words
    • both
      • internally (doing eg Bio-Emotive)
      • interpersonally
    • re interpersonally
      • sometimes you notice that there seem to be meanings attached to words even if they're words like "angry"
        • like maybe I or my partner have a concept of anger that says "if I'm angry, someone did something wrong"

February 18th, 2021

• Say that Mal wants to resolve a disagreement with NNTD, and Ben says yes but qualifies that he wants to be able to say if it feels off, and then Mal says "of course!" ... from where does Ben come to trust that Mal both wants that, and that he would actually be able to follow through on that from a skill perspective
  • integrating someone's concern is not a straightforward act

• e.g. Malcolm bringing in the NNTD that is supposed to help ppl navigate a conflict, but if Benjamin doesn't trust that he is going to be cautious signing up for a form that is threatening on some level

• idk, something related to NNTD maybe, or an example of an object-level trust protocol?
  • like-antennas-to-heaven.medium.com/zeds-relationship-agreements-8ff7c6…

February 12th, 2021

• core piece NNTD - the importance of being able to say that you don't yet know how to solve a problem

omniwin training game

• I'm reflecting that training the NNTD could be interestingly practiced by using some kinda contrived game situations where it is hard to find win-wins but the win-wins are known to exist.
  • Like some sort of board/card game where everyone has a win condition and you just have to work together to create a board state where everyone's condition is satisfied.
  • Relates to An exercise for getting same-sided & post-compromise, which you could usefully do beforehand.
  • To make it more challenging, and simulate stressors, you could have there be some sort of timer.
  • Not sure if real-time or turn-based though. Obviously even if turn-based you'd want lots of space to have deep unstructured conversation.
  • I'm not sure exactly how you would go about making it so I in particular have to care about my condition in particular, not just "well here are all of the constraints we have"
    • one version of this might be flavored kind of like Keep Talking And Nobody Explodes where your win condition is actually so long and complicated that you can't explain it adequately or something
      • if this were a video game it could even have hidden components, where you have to run a test to see if it satisfies, and you can run tests without having to get the rest of the team to agree to let you run a test, but nobody else can run your test, so you're ultimately responsible for ensuring the shared board configuration satisfies your test
        • this actually seems pretty decent!
    • a totally ridiculous version would be something like, set everybody up with Pavloks, and whoever's condition isn't satisfied by the shared board state at the end of the round gets shocked
      • this is physically costly, and it's kind of weird to enter into a game where you're signing up to maybe be shocked
      • but it does point at something quite precise, which is basically like...
      • ...I want none of my friends to get shocked, but I definitely have more skin in the game with my own getting shocked
    • obviously if you have an external person offering prizes you can make it more potent
      • the most obvious non-transferrable/non-tradeable prize would be like, admission to some cool event

January 30th, 2021

• NNTD is explicitly aimed at this and pretty good at it

An exercise for getting same-sided & post-compromise

• It's possible and, with increasing skill at NNTD, common to be profoundly satisfied and profoundly surprised-by-how at the same time.

January 25th, 2021

• Really great articulation of a NNTD-related thing

• #to-read re NNTD on large scales - polarization
  • Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts
    • This actually makes a fuckton of sense, because...
      • my experience doesn't contradict your experience!
      • my experience makes sense of my behavior!
    • my experience doesn't contradict your experience!
      • unlike facts, or values, that can seem to be in direct conflict, my experience itself does not conflict with yours
      • my interpretation of it might contradict some interpretation of yours (or even imply you couldn't possibly have had an experience you know you had, which is a mess)
      • but the experience itself just exists and somehow needs to be reconciled with the relevance and significance of other peoples' experience
    • my experience makes sense of my behavior!
      • this is "of course you would do that"
      • cf "levels of reconciliation" tweet
      • there's a sense in which we all have the same set of objective facts, even if we disagree on what we are
      • whereas sharing a subjective reason gives plenty of space for you to say "oh of course you'd see it that way, given your experiences; I still don't really see it that way myself, given mine."
    • cites
      • J. L. Kalla, D. E. Broockman, Reducing exclusionary attitudes through interpersonal conversation: Evidence from three field experiments. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 114, 410–425 (2020).
        • > "One large-scale study found that narratives, when paired with nonjudgmental listening, can shift views on contentious issues"

• Cool tool for helping you troubleshoot having hurt someone. Haven't explored in much depth but it got recommended in Kevin Kelly's recommendo newsletter: post-blame NNTD
  • Am I part of the problem?
  • I just discovered this interactive (and empathic) tool that will walk you through how to apologize. It also helps you understand the difference between intent and impact and the different ways you can make amends — direct, indirect or by example. It's not designed to make you feel better about yourself, but instead is a useful practice in accountability. — CD
  • and looking at it briefly I was broadly encouraged
  • elizabethsampat.itch.io/am-i-part-of-the-problem

January 13th, 2021

• somehow relevant to NNTD & much of what people do is avoiding past mistakes
  • twitter.com/GeniesLoki/status/1349349541477310464

January 12th, 2021

• re forgiveness & the NNTD
  • Guess: true forgiveness, at least the default version, is only possible/good if you understand well what, how, and why exactly they did what they did. Otherwise you can't tell if you're battling hidden adversaries. Does your version of forgiveness work in a Solzhenitsyn world?
    • twitter.com/tsvibt/status/1347589780641468417

December 18th, 2020

• great stuff re trust & NNTD
  • twitter.com/AskYatharth/status/1339321871410606081
  • twitter.com/AskYatharth/status/1339322658572398599
  • twitter.com/Malcolm_Ocean/status/1338428941116182528
  • twitter.com/natural_hazard/status/1339972623497871366

November 19th, 2020

• everything makes sense & NNTD
  • twitter.com/mattgoldenberg/status/1329121695425327104

Sarah McManus

• her integrity was part of what allowed me to see the NNTD

July 18th, 2020

• Realizing that the NNTD map may want to have different like... phases.
  • eg:
    • coming into relationship anew
    • emerging new tension
    • backlog of distrust
  • (Hold Me Tight book has 7 conversations that feel somehow connected to this)

Everyone is basically living in a dream mashup of their current external situation & old emotional meanings

• Re responsibility & updates post-NNTD, see this section:
  • • Wanted to jot down something I noticed about how this relates to the dream mashups thing / Everyone is basically living in a dream mashup of their current external situation & old emotional meanings
      • I used to think that it was kind of the person having the nightmare's job to recognize that and pull themselves out.
      • And I'm now seeing ways in which structurally it works a lot better if the people triggering the nightmare are able to orient to it like
        • okay, this person currently can't trust that I won't behave in some way that hurt them in the past
        • and I want to respect that reality
          • and explore how I might communicate that I won't, inasmuch as that is what's so
          • as well as explore how it might also be so that I will behave in such a way
            • noting that that doesn't mean that behaving in such a way is wrong
            • and it might also be the case that many other people wouldn't be hurt by such behavior, or that I might think it makes sense for me to continue doing that behavior and find another level of abstraction to get samesided with this person on
              • which might involve them doing emotional reconsolidation on their response to the behavior
              • or might involve us acknowledging together that
                • I don't have another move I feel makes sense for me to make
                • that their experience of distrust/activation/whatever in response to my behavior is ok
                  • and doesn't mean either of us is wrong
              • etc etc
          • it also might be the case that I would not in any of my other relationships behave in such a way, but in the context of trying to relate with this person who expects people to behave this way, that I'll somehow end up behaving this way
      • Previously I sort of had a thought that if someone was like "Get me out of this nightmare" (but not in so many words) that the thing that needed to happen was for them to be prompted to wake up.
        • But I'm seeing more clearly now that such a response ("wake up") can reinforce the sense of nightmare, and that it thus deepens the distrust and creates more tangles.
          • The "wake up", for me at least, often comes from a perspective of
            • "we can't do anything useful while you're stuck in this"
          • And the whole stance has a kind of "this nightmare isn't real" kind of vibe. I've even done that to myself at times. And it's tempting to do, because there's a sense in which it is almost always a smaller reality than one's usual reality, so if you're just comparing size then it seems less real or not real. But it is still real and it contains information that the reality one is otherwise present to does not, and that's why it's happening and it won't fundamentally integrate until that information & reality is integrated.
            • Sarah: Oof, this lands -- "it it almost always a smaller reality than one's usual reality [...] but it is still real and it contains information"
        • Whereas a response that says "oh, I see you can't seem to wake up and be present right now. what are you needing, as you understand it?" may in many cases break the image of the nightmare because it disconfirms the nightmare's sense of "this person doesn't care about me"
          • you may not be able to u bbbbbbbnderstand or give them what they need, given whatever constraints, but you can have an orientation that continually says "you matter and your experience is real"
          • (this is not a complete answer—it's just another way to point at the generator of the NNTD, which is a fully human-complete puzzle-solving challenge)
          • Part of the point here is to completely upend the idea of "we can't do anything useful while you're stuck in this", because you can actually do something very useful, which is create a different kind of response to the stuckness and nightmare
        • In both cases here the quoted phrases are not necessarily literal utterances, but more like the basic stance of the response