How Are You Communicating On This Forum??? (Mind Blowing Model) (Intention Of Commu..

[UnconsciousHuman]

You're on the forum... There is a you and there is a forum. The forum is comprised of people and their opinions. How are you interacting with the people on the forum? That can be answered using this model.

This is separate from why you are on the forum. That would be an indication of your "Values". Rather this model is looking at the intention behind the things you say.

Again, the model you're about to see is different from the "Cognition" or "Values". This model here is really looking in-depth at your intention when communicating not how you communicate. You could see this as a "Map Of Intentions Of Communication" 

THIS MODEL ISOLATES THE "INTENTION OF COMMUNICATION" NOT "HOW" OR "WHAT" YOU COMMUNICATE.

ONE: Your intention is to establish a power dynamic where you are dominant. (Trolling, belittling, hating etc...)

TWO: Your intention is to conform, follow the tradition and preserve the norms.  

THREE: Your intention is to prove someone else wrong (debunk), and show that you are right. Or you are playing up your self-image.

FOUR: Your intention is to be gentle, connect, bond, and support.

Tier 2 which isn't interested in playing a role like the other stages:

FIVE: Your intention is to learn and understand. You are looking for new perspectives and insights. The aim is to create a better "understanding" or "map of reality".

I think depending on your mood, the subject of discussion, or other factors you can alternate between the stages. So the "mode of operation" you use to interact with the people isn't fixed all the time. It is also possible to have combined Intentionality. Example: Learning and proving yourself right/superior. FIVE + THREE.

 

• I developed this model myself recently so it is not complete. PM me if you have any input.

 

• Moderators can use this model to discriminate between Trolls and Genuine users. If a user is constantly showing ONE/RED "Intention Of Communication" they're likely to be trolls.

 

• Users of this forum can use this model to explain why someone said something a certain way, both inside and outside the forum.

 

• Since I have SD stage GREENvalues.. For this forum I hope this model can be used to better your understanding of your own "Intentions Of Communication" and when that happens you automatically notice how petty you are at times and then decide to stop that, thus helping create a more harmonious and loving community one person at a time.

Edited April 25, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman
I have renamed the stages so that they differ from the spiral dynamics model names because it causes a lot of confusion.

[Thewritersunion]

@UnconsciousHuman what about turquoise, coral, and amber?

[UnconsciousHuman]

@Cykaaaa

Quote

You're assuming that each stage can only have one way of interfacing with the forum. For example, orange can also treat the forum as a great resource for self improvement. Spiral stages are much more nuanced than this! There are healthy and unhealthy versions of each stage.

But overall, I like this idea  

Okay, so let's dissect.

"You're assuming that" "much more nuanced than this!" this is what I would call stage ORANGE interaction within the forum, this kind of "my viewpoint is right and yours? not so much"

I'm pointing towards "intentionality of communication" or "Operating system of interaction" as opposed to the actual value development of the users. There is a distinction. You can be here to improve yourself ORANGE (Values facet) and then learn new things YELLOW (Intention facet).

Edited April 23, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman

[UnconsciousHuman]

@Thewritersunion Lol, I don't fucking know. What I'm tracking here is intentionality, intentionality gets more and more complex and you can use spiral dynamics to explain that, I don't know what comes after YELLOW.

[UnconsciousHuman]

@Cykaaaa

Quote

I was just trying to help improve your model. I said I liked it. Criticism is not stage orange by default.

I would say constructive criticism, in the facet of intentions, only belongs to YELLOW, and that stage only, because it aims to understand and reconfigure an idea. The tonality in which you spoke indicated to me stage ORANGE using the "Intentionality Map". But I might have misjudged, but never the less I think you get the idea.

Quote

Using your logic, every time Leo argues it's a signal that he uses an orange "intentionality of communication". You can have positions and argue for them at every stage of the spiral.

Leo can have stage ORANGE intentionality. What are you implying by the second sentence?

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman

[UnconsciousHuman]

@Cykaaaa

• There is nothing wrong with saying "I'm right and you are wrong". In fact, that is closely related to what assertiveness is. And that is useful. 

In fact, let me use ORANGE intentionality right now on the same sentence:

• Why does everything need to be black and white?! There is nothing wrong with ORANGE intentionality..."I'm right you're wrong" In fact, that is closely related to what assertiveness is. And that is useful!! dont you seee!!!!!

The tonality is different in the second one therefor conveying a different intention.

I really hope you get the gist of it by now.

Again bro, criticism if it is constructive it is categorized as YELLOW since it does not play a role or have an agenda other than reconfiguring the idea in a more accurate manner.

Edited April 24, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman

[Preety_India]

I don't think SD only works on self love. 

It's a bunch of things. 

A lot of factors while determining SD 

A person's general intentions goals purpose 

They views on politics and the world 

Their relationship with nature and environment

Their level of Openness to new ideas and thoughts or the lack thereof.. 

Their lifestyle and relationships 

Their capacity to either benefit themselves or society. 

Their psychological and emotional intelligence and level of empathy and maturity. 

Some people may lack self love and yet be at a higher or desirable level in SD

[UnconsciousHuman]

@Cykaaaa

I would like to mention the importance of our conversation. It has allowed me to more accurately connect the dots. 

That being said, I think BLUE coming on here to prove they are right and others are wrong is ORANGE, not BLUE intention. 

BLUE "morals" people have ORANGE intention towards other BLUE "morals" people.

Edited April 24, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman

[UnconsciousHuman]

@Cykaaaa The content of what they say conveys their BLUEness "moral values" which can be perceived as dogmatic, but the intention to prove others wrong and them right is ORANGE.

It is totally possible to be morally stage BLUE and intend to connect, bond, and be of support to others stage GREEN.

An example of this is when you see religious people gather around and just share their own experiences with Jesus Christ and how he spoke to them, sharing each other's opinions to help bond and uplift each other. 

The moral development is stage BLUE the Intentionality and communication is GREEN.

Edited April 24, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman

[UnconsciousHuman]

@Preety_India I think you meant to say that on your own post...

Quote

I don't think SD only works on self love. 

It's a bunch of things. 

A lot of factors while determining SD 

A person's general intentions goals purpose 

They views on politics and the world 

Their relationship with nature and environment

Their level of Openness to new ideas and thoughts or the lack thereof.. 

Their lifestyle and relationships 

Their capacity to either benefit themselves or society. 

Their psychological and emotional intelligence and level of empathy and maturity. 

Some people may lack self love and yet be at a higher or desirable level in SD

What you said is true absolutely, about how people can be up on the scale but not love themselves.

Spiral-Dynamics doesnt just track moral development and cognitive development, which you expressed, it can be used to model any most human-related systems of advancing complexity.

Self-love does go through a process that can be tracked using the spiral, I'm too tired to think up what that would look like. #SleepyAF

Edited April 24, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman

[lmfao]

I wouldn't seek to unwarrantly reduce stages to these simple approaches. But if this sort of a breakdown works for you and only serves as a tool/pointer, then all power to you. 

I suppose this is generally true with ideas anyone holds or says. What is said perhaps isn't so important as the relation and context with which you hold the idea. If its all seen as approximate and loose and rough it's fine.

Its a very hard to judge in another person, whether they are holding the right relation or not. The same way it's hard to judge any characteristic of someone, e. G.Their archetype/stage. It's as though the moment you put your observational understanding into words you've already betrayed the image you had. Hmmm I'm reminded of this quote from monogatari. 

"The moment you put it into words and tell someone, it starts to diverge from your feelings. Words are nothing but lies and nothing but cheats. No matter what the truth, the moment it is told, it becomes dramatized."

Edited April 24, 2020 by lmfao

[GodDesireOnlyLove]

Coral It is what it is

[UnconsciousHuman]

@lmfao Every aspect of the human psyche advances in complexity. It so happens to be that you bounce back and forth between self vs other as the fundamental way of advancing or coping with this complexity. This is what is recognized as the “Stages”

Spiral Dynamics is known to tracks human values and moral development, but It is more than just limited to that, you can use it as an tool to understand all kinds of different aspects of the human psyche that advance in complexity.

You mentioned unwarranted use of spiral dynamics... Logic and coherent understanding don’t need an authoritative figure to validate them.

Edit: I'm not trying to disprove you and be right for the sake of doing that, that isn't my intention here, I agree with you on most of the points, except for the one, I mentioned last.

Edited April 24, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman

[UnconsciousHuman]

@Leo Gura Happy Bday man. What is your opinion of this idea/model?

[Consept]

Personally I think this is a good idea, not to judge others as people have said but to judge yourself and your intentions behind each post. 

For example I do post up sometimes because I see something that is really wrong in terms of how they arrived at that, and I feel an urge to correct that or offer a different a perspective. Now part of this is I want to help but there is also a part where I want to be right or at least challanging to their view. I'm not sure where that falls in this model. 

But anything that builds up awareness to the reasons you do things is a positive I think 

[UnconsciousHuman]

@Consept This is a common combined-intentionality. Orange and Yellow. 

You could also have Green and Yellow where you aim to help reconfigure ideas and correct people but do so with the intent of truly helping and loving, at the certain times users have this intentionality, they will often times post at the end write something along the lines of "I appreciate you and the way you think, I hope I could help and be of use, much love"  

But this is an indication of their intentionality not actual evidence of it, some users will seek to dismiss you and prove they are right (ORANGE) and then will also post at the end "I truly hope you get the message, I hope I could help, much love".

Edited April 24, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman

[The observer]

@UnconsciousHuman

I think your approach here is Blue/Orange. You seem eager to prove your model is true and universal and you don't seem to be able to get what others are trying to say but rather you're conveniently deflecting and denying every other way of viewing or talking about your model. I think @lmfaomade a good point. It's not just about the model itself, it's also about how you relate to it.

[UnconsciousHuman]

@The observer

My approach is to create a better map of reality and yes Im certain of this model so I want to prove this model is right and those who dismiss it wrong but this isn't the main intention. This is combined intentionality YELLOW + ORANGE I would say more its a 7:3 ratio. Which only further proves the accuracy of the model. 

I should mention, there is no right or wrong intentionality, of course, RED and BLUE intentionality are usually not suitable for high-level communication to happen, you could then call them "wrong" but that's because of how ineffective they are, and in the case, with RED intentionality it is often bannable.

I'm in agreement with you and "lmao" when you say the power of the model is how you relate to it. With that being said though, I believe (based on my own observation of myself) that these intentions are mappable and the advancement levels have a predictability to them.

Edited April 24, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman

[The observer]

5 minutes ago, UnconsciousHuman said:

@The observer

My approach is to create a better map of reality and I want to prove this model is right and those who dismiss it wrong. This is combined intentionality YELLOW + ORANGE. Which only further proves the accuracy of the model.

This is circular reasoning (early Orange and below). You're proving your model is true according to your model. You're dismissing all outside insights and putting them all in one category: "wrong". Our insights are not necessarily to prove or disprove your model, they're just observations from multiple subjective points of view. And I'm sure we're not on the same page when we say "approach". You probably mean intention but we mean the way this intention is manifesting in the real world. You can't have an objective view if you keep denying different ways of interpretation. Accuracy is not usually gained by circular reasoning but by open-mindedness and careful observation. I would look into the mechanics of creating models before starting to make conclusions.

14 minutes ago, UnconsciousHuman said:

@The observer

I should mention, there is no right or wrong intentionality, of course, RED and BLUE intentionality are usually not suitable for high-level communication to happen, you could then call them "wrong" but that's because of how ineffective they are.

This sounds like a late Green/early Yellow approach which is great in terms of SD.

[UnconsciousHuman]

@The observer 

Notice in yourself how you are trying to prove me wrong, If you chose to do the opposite, and look for the ways that I'm saying is reasonable, you wouldn't be so persistently critical, and instead see the ways this model can be used to explain a lot. 

The point on circular reasoning, true I did use that logic to point out how accurate it is at explaining my own intention but notice how you use that to prove your agenda that I'm closed-minded and not open to reinterpretation. "I'm using circular logic" "Stage ORANGE and below" which is said to imply that I'm deluded. 

Also, I'm not sure what you meant by "when we say approach" and "we differ in understanding intentionality". Who are you referring to by "We" and what do you mean by difference of use of those two words "Approach" & "Intention".

Could you help me out a little and tell me the multiple interpretations I dismissed?

By the very fact that you are pointing out personally how "you think" I responded to the users here, instead of analyzing the model and seeing its implications. It indicates to me ORANGE intentionality. Nothing wrong with that, as mentioned in before posts on this thread.

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman