RSS

Tag Archives: risk

A Method of Dialogue, Step Three: Deliberation

Making meaning in community can be difficult work. Even in what I call ‘genuine community’ there will be misunderstandings and occasional conflict. Partners in community don’t always get along, but when they find themselves at odds they know how to work together for resolution.

In this mini-series of blog posts I am describing the steps or phases of a method for engaging dialogue, building community, and resolving conflict. My Mentallurgy Method of Dialogue is based on a therapeutic approach that empowers individuals to take creative control of their lives.

Much about life is beyond our control, but where we put our focus – what we think about, what beliefs we hold, what feelings we have, and what we do with all this internal mentallurgy – is ours to decide.

So far, we’ve explored the phases of preparation and consideration. Individuals need to be fully present before they can engage each other as partners in creative dialogue. Once engaged, they need to focus their work on opening a space where each can feel safe, welcome, and included. As I explained, the phase of consideration is ‘considerate’ of the differences that partners bring to the table; but it also helps them transcend their differences in a quest for common ground.

Only by staying on the narrow path between urgency (Scylla) and conviction (Charybdis) can we identify the mutual interests and shared values that will lead us to resolution. In this post we will look deeper into the third phase of creative dialogue, DELIBERATION, where partners enjoin a strategy for clarifying their desired outcome.

In Mentallurgy we give a color-code to four primary attitudes or energy states of human beings. Green represents desire, gratitude, and hope. Yellow stands for fear, anxiety, and worry. Red means anger, frustration, and resentment. Finally, Blue is our color-code for sadness, disappointment, and grief. An aim of therapy is to help the client (called a “creator”) to more consistently ‘lean into green’ – or in other words, keep their focus on what they really want.

Individuals often seek therapy in the first place because their focus has gotten stuck on things that make them feel anxious, frustrated, or disappointed. In short, they’re focusing on what they don’t want and can’t get unstuck.

In the DELIBERATION phase of creative dialogue partners clarify their desired result, commonly called the goal (‘G’ in the diagram above). The goal is what they want to reach, accomplish, or achieve. It’s not merely getting to the box and checking it off, however, for the partners anticipate some kind of positive gain upon reaching the goal. This gain is the reward, payoff, benefit, or advantage their success will bring about.

Simply put, it’s not the goal itself, which is just a mark for measuring progress, but the gain expected through its achievement that partners really want. That’s why ‘gain’ is color-coded green.

From Latin for “to balance or weigh,” DELIBERATION in this context is about weighing a desired result and its anticipated gain against three other factors – all while maintaining focus on the goal. It may be tempting to simply ignore these other factors and fixate only on what we want. But this is the ignórance I mentioned in an earlier post, which is a willful disregard of things that we should be taking into account.

So, what are these other factors?

Risk

In any important endeavor there will always be some factor of risk, referring to the probability of failure – that we won’t reach our goal and get what we want (gain). Partners in dialogue who are working to clarify a truly meaningful goal need to understand that the risk of failure or falling short of their goal is one of the factors that actually elevate its value.

If there’s no risk whatsoever, the goal will fail to inspire and motivate, which is a failure of much greater consequence than merely falling short of a target. In DELIBERATION partners conspire to factor manageable risk into their strategy, not out of it. But then again, if there’s too much risk attached to their goal, the high probability of failure will likely distract partners from their creative work. That’s why the risk needs to be ‘manageable’: neither overwhelming nor nonexistent.

Cost

Any meaningful goal will take time; it may also take money or other resources to make it a reality. In this calculus of success, cost is what we need to give up, sacrifice, or lose in the process. So if gain is the anticipated value added, cost is the value we are willing to give over for its sake. Of course, we run the risk of this trade going badly, of losing more than we gain. Giving time to the collaborative pursuit of a goal at least means that partners are taking time away from other interests and commitments.

Just as with risk, however, if what partners really want costs them nothing, their goal will have little attraction or value. It won’t motivate or inspire their best effort. Cost-free ventures are generally not very interesting or fulfilling. Partners should work to minimize the cost but not discount it so much as to render their goal worthless.

Work

The third factor that needs to be weighed against the anticipated gain of achieving a goal addresses the effort it takes to get there. There should always be a challenge gradient or degree of difficulty associated with worthwhile projects. Otherwise, if a goal is effortless, it won’t be worth much. In many cases, the degree of satisfaction partners feel upon reaching a goal is proportional to the amount of effort they put into its pursuit.

When we lower the challenge gradient – as schools have been doing for students in order to show more impressive success statistics to external funders and state legislatures – we end up diminishing the factor that might otherwise help individuals discover and develop their true potential.


DELIBERATION in creative dialogue is the serious business where partners define their goal, clarify the gain they anticipate with its accomplishment, and carefully weigh this gain against the probability of failure (risk), what they will need to give up for its sake (cost), and how much effort it will require (work).

By keeping all these factors in balance, all the while ‘leaning into green’, partners will be able to draw on the strength of their synergy and grow into genuine community.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Holding On and Letting Go

Anderson: “People of power and position are not the only ones who resist threats to a belief system; so do ordinary people who have internalized that belief system and take it to be absolute reality. The collapse of a belief system can be like the end of the world. Even those who are most oppressed by a belief system often fear the loss of it. People can literally cease to know who they are.”

One of the working threads in my current conversation regards (a) world as a human construction of meaning. There are as many “worlds” as there are mentally functioning human beings on this planet, and each individual migrates through numerous world-constructs in an average lifetime.

A world is not reality, but only a representation of reality. It is “made up” of our recurrent thoughts, persistent opinions, personal and family stories, as well as the overarching myths of our culture that can bridge many generations. Inside these enclosures we feel relatively secure, conserve an identity (or several identities), search for significance, and work out our purpose.

Another, but less inclusive term for what we are calling a world is belief system, which tends to take the discussion in a more cognitive direction. Beliefs are judgments and conclusions that nevertheless still require an emotional “boost” to cross any gaps in logic, insufficient evidence, or lack of direct experience. From the root-word meaning “to hold dear,” belief is less about knowledge than commitment.

We are emotionally attached to our judgments about reality. It gets even more complicated when we realize that many of our beliefs are nothing more than emotional commitments to other beliefs. We need them to be right, or else all hell might break loose. At least our worlds might fall apart, which is probably worse.

Anderson makes the point that “ordinary people,” as distinct from those in positions of power and privilege, are just as defensive of the worlds that make their lives meaningful. We could also add those of lesser fortune, who labor and strain under the weight of oppression. If you see yourself as a victim of evil-doing, at least you have an identity equipped with its relevant concerns, coping strategies, aspirations for freedom and “the good life,” along with your own retinue of fellow victims, enemy-oppressors, and occasional benefactors.

The fact is, we need our worlds just as much as our worlds need us to create them. Problems arise when we forget that we’re making it all up and start insisting on our world’s absolute truth. The postmodern discovery is that every world is a project (coming out of us), a construct (built and arranged around us), and a representation (of reality). While our amnesia regarding its origin and status as so much pretense may be adaptive to some degree, our insistence on the absolute truth of our belief systems is where all wars, most divorces, and many mental illnesses likely begin.

After the birth of what I am calling the “postmodern discovery,” many believed that the time had come for humanity to advance beyond the need for belief systems altogether. But that turned out to be just another emotional judgment (belief) of an emerging worldview – another phase in the evolution of worlds, despite the elevated self-consciousness of its perspective.

It seems to me that the real challenge is to occupy our worlds in humble awareness of their nature as fabricated, provisional and necessarily short-sighted views on reality. Psychologically we can’t live without them. But in the interest of our health and longevity as a species, and of the health of our planet, we need some combination of courage and compassion to reach through the emotionally charged boundaries that separate us from each other.

When our worlds do collapse – either completely as in the phase-transitions to a “new mind,” or only partially as we slowly outgrow earlier convictions – the experience can be nothing short of apocalyptic. What had provided security and a place to stand feels as if it is falling away from under our feet. What had provided us with orientation and a sense of direction suddenly comes to pieces above our heads.

Because who we are is so deeply implicated in how we see reality, the breakdown of our world amounts to a loss of identity.

Just as post-theism entails transcending or going beyond the objective existence of the mythological god, so too does this evolutionary moment require that we loosen up and let go of our egos as fixed identities. Such self-transcendence needs to happen if we have any hope of staying in touch with what’s really going on, with the really real, with reality.

Letting go is scary, and it’s not without risk that we release what has given us security for what might lead to fulfillment.

This is where the old guard is typically called in. Tribal authorities, holy tradition, sacred scriptures and the mythological god are all being summoned in  defense of our out-grown worlds. We don’t want to lose what we have, even though it has already lost much of its relevance to our daily lives. So we close our eyes and hunker down, and call it faith.

If we take the step from this fixed position, we want our foot to land on another fixed position – somewhere we can lean into and put our weight, something that’s stable and certain. But both stability and predictability are features of belief systems, not actual experience; of worlds, not reality.

The present mystery of reality is dynamic, and actual experience is much more fluid than our rigid belief systems can comfortably admit. And yet it’s a mark of both maturity and faith when we can climb to the edge of our worlds and leap from what we think we know, into what is beyond belief.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,