Here’s me attempting to parse this and translate it into my own native frame, which I think is closer to the median LW-folk.
This is partly be checking where I might be misunderstanding you. I’ll flag parts where I wasn’t sure I understood.
...
If you find yourself talking with someone who seems to have a very different worldview or way of looking at a situation, and your attempts to communicate seem to be falling completely flat (i.e. you don’t understand the things they’re trying to say and they don’t seem to be understanding yours)...
...and both of you are fairly invested in actually bridging the communication gap
(or, at least you’re pretty invested, and they’re at least willing to continue talking to you even if they don’t seem super invested? It was unclear to me which people needed to have the prerequisites)
...then here’s a process you think will help bridge that gap. It is fairly skill-intensive. You think it’d work reasonably well for people who have the skill-prequisites. The process doesn’t seem perfect but it’s the best one you’ve got.
The prerequisites are:
1. Embodied Circling skill.
I’m not sure I understand what you meant here. I think I understand the things you said it was not. It makes sense to me that to bridge frames, you may need to let go of a need to feel seen or understood.
Tabooing “Circling”, I think the thing you mean here is to have skill at:
Introspection – noticing your own bodily sensations, posture, emotions, thoughts, felt-senses*. Being able to model how those inner-stimuli map onto your overall psychology in a way that tracks reality. (I think Circling practices tend to avoid focusing on fitting all the pieces together into a coherent story, and instead be more like looking at the raw data, but I think someone who is ‘good at Circling’ would
“Extrospection”. Noticing other people’s body posture, mannerisms, and words they say, and forming accurate impressions of what’s going on in their bodies/minds.
Making statements and asking questions that successfully communicate your inner state to other people, and hearing other people’s words/expressions about their inner states and gaining an accurate impression of what states those words correspond to (which can include noticing when their words are kinda fake and lying, consciously or unconsciously)
(Those were both very “rationalist frame flavored” descriptions, and I think Circling aims to also have some stuff that’s less about “information intake and prediction” and more about, like, just vibing, and maybe… having skill at vibing? But I feel less able to summarize that)
You mention it being important to be full of love/joy/connected. My guess is this is not actually a requirement-per-se, but was a route which worked for you, and maybe the pair of you/your-teacher. I think there is some super-set thing that Love/Joy is one facet of.
...
...okay that was a fair bit of work and I think I’m going to stop there for now. I think the next few bullets are probably more straightforward before we get to The Process, which I’ll come back and take a stab at later.
....
* “Felt Sense” is still pretty jargony and I’m not sure people use it to mean. the same thing. See “Focusing,” for skeptics, Focusing, and The Felt Sense: What, Why and How. I think “felt sense” is typically used to mean something like “a sensation in your body that corresponds with emotions or thoughts but is not directly the emotions or thoughts.” Focusing is a technique for finding felt senses that tell you useful information about stuff you’re subconsciously aware of but can’t necessarily express in words.
Your attempt to break down the Circling skill is creating a good example of the original problem at hand.
I notice a fracture between my frame of Circling and your frame of it. The gap is not all that bad, as far as I can tell. Like, bridging seems fairly plausible (rather than totally impossible, as it seems in certain situations). But also, it seems like it might take quite a bit of work to bridge with appropriate fidelity.
IMO a sloppy, imprecise, or agreeable person might be willing to interpret your version as a ‘basically good enough’ translation of Circling practice into rationalist terminology… and consider them basically describing the same thing in the end.
But I’m not willing to compromise the significant assumptions underneath my frame, and I imagine the other person shouldn’t either… at least as long as we’re both keeping track of something Real. Compromising on this seems good for coordination and harmony purposes but not good for getting to the bottom of what each of us really sees, believes, and acts in accord with.
So here, you and I might actually be able to try the technique and see what happens. ! :0
My own attempt to Taboo Circling… here is the skill breakdown:
Staying at the level of sensation. This is one of the 5 Principles in the Circling Europe school. So, the ability to not automatically go into stories but to stay present with the arising and passing of phenomena, especially based in the physical, emotional, and energetic bodies.
Sincerity. Or maybe meta-sincerity, if you like. Showing up without pretense, as much as possible. Authentic, real-time expression. (Obviously, some amount of insincerity or pretense is fine, esp if this can be held and revealed sincerely.)
Holding one’s own experiences without putting it on the other person, aka owning one’s experience, and being responsible for your nervous system responses. Avoiding victim consciousness / getting swallowed by the drama triangle. You can hold your own wounded inner children, trauma responses, etc. You don’t fall into total nervous system dysregulation when triggered. You can stay conscious and present even while activated. You take responsibility for your own reactions and don’t resort to merely blaming external circumstances.
Ability to go beyond ego. If the ego drives, then instead of just being with what is happening, the ego will attempt to do things like… turn everything that is happening into a story about the self. Or get something it wants, like validation or a sense of belonging or a pleasant experience or a novel idea. One of the main issues with the ego driving is that you will fail to see the other person as a person, instead trying to use them as a means to an end. While assuming that you ARE seeing them and treating them like a full person.
Bonus skill: You are very perceptive about what’s going on, at multiple levels. And you can turn that into articulate words. ! But if you yourself aren’t good at this, it seems fine… a third party can do this part.
If you find yourself talking with someone who seems to have a very different worldview or way of looking at a situation, and your attempts to communicate seem to be falling completely flat (i.e. you don’t understand the things they’re trying to say and they don’t seem to be understanding yours)...
...and both of you are fairly invested in actually bridging the communication gap
(or, at least you’re pretty invested, and they’re at least willing to continue talking to you even if they don’t seem super invested? It was unclear to me which people needed to have the prerequisites)
...then here’s a process you think will help bridge that gap. It is fairly skill-intensive. You think it’d work reasonably well for people who have the skill-prequisites. The process doesn’t seem perfect but it’s the best one you’ve got.
Mostly accurate.
A lot of the time, these ‘fractures’ result in major disconnections between people, such that they stop talking to each other for a year or more. Or if they need to work together, it becomes really difficult for them to work together in any functional or healthy way. This fracture can spread to others or cause group-wide fractures.
A rationalist-relevant example might be… say, inability of certain prominent rationalist leaders from being able to coordinate or even have reasonable / good conversations with one another. Sometimes requiring extensive mediation. Or sometimes causing bigger community-wide conflicts. I’m sure you can come up with at least 3 examples.
Sorry for not including this context in the post. I wasn’t trying to make the post very good. :P
OK, but let’s say! YOU are experiencing this kind of fracture with someone and are at least willing to try to bridge. (However, unwilling / unable to drop your frame or try to adopt theirs.) This process is an attempt to find a way to start the conversation without either party needing to drop their frame. So the frames get to ‘meet’.
Here’s me attempting to parse this and translate it into my own native frame, which I think is closer to the median LW-folk.
This is partly be checking where I might be misunderstanding you. I’ll flag parts where I wasn’t sure I understood.
...
If you find yourself talking with someone who seems to have a very different worldview or way of looking at a situation, and your attempts to communicate seem to be falling completely flat (i.e. you don’t understand the things they’re trying to say and they don’t seem to be understanding yours)...
...and both of you are fairly invested in actually bridging the communication gap
(or, at least you’re pretty invested, and they’re at least willing to continue talking to you even if they don’t seem super invested? It was unclear to me which people needed to have the prerequisites)
...then here’s a process you think will help bridge that gap. It is fairly skill-intensive. You think it’d work reasonably well for people who have the skill-prequisites. The process doesn’t seem perfect but it’s the best one you’ve got.
The prerequisites are:
1. Embodied Circling skill.
I’m not sure I understand what you meant here. I think I understand the things you said it was not. It makes sense to me that to bridge frames, you may need to let go of a need to feel seen or understood.
Tabooing “Circling”, I think the thing you mean here is to have skill at:
Introspection – noticing your own bodily sensations, posture, emotions, thoughts, felt-senses*. Being able to model how those inner-stimuli map onto your overall psychology in a way that tracks reality. (I think Circling practices tend to avoid focusing on fitting all the pieces together into a coherent story, and instead be more like looking at the raw data, but I think someone who is ‘good at Circling’ would
“Extrospection”. Noticing other people’s body posture, mannerisms, and words they say, and forming accurate impressions of what’s going on in their bodies/minds.
Making statements and asking questions that successfully communicate your inner state to other people, and hearing other people’s words/expressions about their inner states and gaining an accurate impression of what states those words correspond to (which can include noticing when their words are kinda fake and lying, consciously or unconsciously)
(Those were both very “rationalist frame flavored” descriptions, and I think Circling aims to also have some stuff that’s less about “information intake and prediction” and more about, like, just vibing, and maybe… having skill at vibing? But I feel less able to summarize that)
You mention it being important to be full of love/joy/connected. My guess is this is not actually a requirement-per-se, but was a route which worked for you, and maybe the pair of you/your-teacher. I think there is some super-set thing that Love/Joy is one facet of.
...
...okay that was a fair bit of work and I think I’m going to stop there for now. I think the next few bullets are probably more straightforward before we get to The Process, which I’ll come back and take a stab at later.
....
* “Felt Sense” is still pretty jargony and I’m not sure people use it to mean. the same thing. See “Focusing,” for skeptics, Focusing, and The Felt Sense: What, Why and How. I think “felt sense” is typically used to mean something like “a sensation in your body that corresponds with emotions or thoughts but is not directly the emotions or thoughts.” Focusing is a technique for finding felt senses that tell you useful information about stuff you’re subconsciously aware of but can’t necessarily express in words.
Your attempt to break down the Circling skill is creating a good example of the original problem at hand.
I notice a fracture between my frame of Circling and your frame of it. The gap is not all that bad, as far as I can tell. Like, bridging seems fairly plausible (rather than totally impossible, as it seems in certain situations). But also, it seems like it might take quite a bit of work to bridge with appropriate fidelity.
IMO a sloppy, imprecise, or agreeable person might be willing to interpret your version as a ‘basically good enough’ translation of Circling practice into rationalist terminology… and consider them basically describing the same thing in the end.
But I’m not willing to compromise the significant assumptions underneath my frame, and I imagine the other person shouldn’t either… at least as long as we’re both keeping track of something Real. Compromising on this seems good for coordination and harmony purposes but not good for getting to the bottom of what each of us really sees, believes, and acts in accord with.
So here, you and I might actually be able to try the technique and see what happens. ! :0
My own attempt to Taboo Circling… here is the skill breakdown:
Staying at the level of sensation. This is one of the 5 Principles in the Circling Europe school. So, the ability to not automatically go into stories but to stay present with the arising and passing of phenomena, especially based in the physical, emotional, and energetic bodies.
Sincerity. Or maybe meta-sincerity, if you like. Showing up without pretense, as much as possible. Authentic, real-time expression. (Obviously, some amount of insincerity or pretense is fine, esp if this can be held and revealed sincerely.)
Holding one’s own experiences without putting it on the other person, aka owning one’s experience, and being responsible for your nervous system responses. Avoiding victim consciousness / getting swallowed by the drama triangle. You can hold your own wounded inner children, trauma responses, etc. You don’t fall into total nervous system dysregulation when triggered. You can stay conscious and present even while activated. You take responsibility for your own reactions and don’t resort to merely blaming external circumstances.
Ability to go beyond ego. If the ego drives, then instead of just being with what is happening, the ego will attempt to do things like… turn everything that is happening into a story about the self. Or get something it wants, like validation or a sense of belonging or a pleasant experience or a novel idea. One of the main issues with the ego driving is that you will fail to see the other person as a person, instead trying to use them as a means to an end. While assuming that you ARE seeing them and treating them like a full person.
Bonus skill: You are very perceptive about what’s going on, at multiple levels. And you can turn that into articulate words. ! But if you yourself aren’t good at this, it seems fine… a third party can do this part.
Mostly accurate.
A lot of the time, these ‘fractures’ result in major disconnections between people, such that they stop talking to each other for a year or more. Or if they need to work together, it becomes really difficult for them to work together in any functional or healthy way. This fracture can spread to others or cause group-wide fractures.
A rationalist-relevant example might be… say, inability of certain prominent rationalist leaders from being able to coordinate or even have reasonable / good conversations with one another. Sometimes requiring extensive mediation. Or sometimes causing bigger community-wide conflicts. I’m sure you can come up with at least 3 examples.
Sorry for not including this context in the post. I wasn’t trying to make the post very good. :P
OK, but let’s say! YOU are experiencing this kind of fracture with someone and are at least willing to try to bridge. (However, unwilling / unable to drop your frame or try to adopt theirs.) This process is an attempt to find a way to start the conversation without either party needing to drop their frame. So the frames get to ‘meet’.