Tag Archives: shared states

SHARED STATE THEORY OF COMMUNICATION

Image

 

This is my personal philosophic calculus, so please do not plagiarize me.  If you are going to quote me give me credit.  It is hard enough in this psychopathic, social climby world to get any recognition.  

 

It is important to understand that two different people can be in relationship differently with the same state.  One person wants to experience it again, the other is avoiding it, still another hasn’t experienced it and they either desire it or want to avoid it.  

You communicate whatever state you are in.  If you feel thwarted you communicate thwartedness.  You want to share the state you are in.  You want to thwart others.  Cognitive psychology has linked the feeling of anger to feeling thwarted.  

Right now we are communicating through a shared states.  We were both schooled in the english language and the letter “A” means the same to me as it does to you more or less.  The word “language” means the same to you as it does to me, more or less.  

The problem with the “general will” of Jean Jacques Rousseau is the problem of being highly and equally educated.  For example if you had to serve two years in the military after high school as they do in Israel and Northern Europe, you would make decisions differently and that would be a state that you share with others that had the same experience of having to take PERSONAL responsibility for the defense of the nation.  So that feeling when everyone knows what is the right thing to do is possible, it is just not an experience we as americans have because of our specialization and our not being highly and equally educated we cannot unleash the “highest common good”. 

Physical proximity also might be a shared state in so far as you look from the same vantage point or you experienced the same event.  But the problem that we run into is that life has experiential data, which is to say that we tacitly interpret and judge reality in our experiencing of it.  

There is also something I realized with psychopaths in that they can communicate a state.  In order to do this you have to know how something will be interpreted so it deals in a way with hermeneutics.  Interestingly though, psychopaths don’t have to be particularly smart to do this.  They can see someone use a behavior and adopt that behavior.  Human beings are acquisitively mimetic.  I have heard people copy arguments that they personally did not understand because it sounded good and winsome.  They copy winning behavior.  This is known as strategic behavior. 

I studied trolls for years when I was creating my theories on psychology.  When I realized that my theories were descriptive and predictive I started using them prescriptively to manipulate the trolls I was trolling.  I psychologically destroyed them.  I trolled entire groups of trolls off the internet.  I realized that I could communicate to them I was in a state that I wasn’t in and as I got better I could communicate to them that I was a person that I am not.  

“All narrative is doxography.”  ~Joxua

That means that all narrative is point of view.  So I would say things that appeared to be coming from a person that I was not.  I would be in character, so to speak.  

https://thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/everything-i-know-looks-through-me/

 

Image

COMPLIMENTARY SCHIZMOGENESIS and the I, You, and We Narratives

Image

 

Deborah Tannen, the foremost expert on male/female communication rituals refers to arguments between men and women as complimentary schizmogenesis.  She is referring to a pattern that is created between tribes and nations where in their relationships they keep on repeating their party lines.  I wanted to give credit to her but I want to be clear that much of my stuff is my understanding and my personal philosophic calculus, so don’t think that all of what I am about to say is coming from her.  I like her and I think we would have a very interesting and edifying conversation.  However we disagree on many aspects.  Scientific materials are descriptive, prescriptive and predictive.  Linguistics chooses to focus on the descriptive part of language, the patterns and processes that occur within living languages without making judgments as to what is good and what is bad.  My focus is on how to make relationship work, how to create the most value in a relationship for the most people, so I do judge and I do prescribe.  

What happens in complimentary schizmogenesis is that each person retreats behind their shibboleths and they start repeating the behavior they believe to be dominant.  Each thinks they deserve to win or deserve their way because of either the masculine solution or the feminine solution.  Each has retreated from the We narrative into the I and you narratives. (my personal philosophic calculus).  She communicates femininity to him and he communicates masculinity back to her.  They do not compromise and create a we narrative.  In my SHARED STATE THEORY OF COMMUNICATION there are 4 shared states, communication, understanding, agreement, participation.  Proximity could be a shared state too and it is necessary for the other 4 more or less but it has less to do with communication.  

I believe in “equality under reason” which means that the most reasonable person gets their way or the most reasonable solution is created.  Everybody hearing that agrees with it, but women think that I am talking about pleasantness, and moral authority and they nod their head in agreement and the go,  “MMMMMHMMMMMM!”  and men do the same but they think I am talking about pragmatism and the end result.  

Women consistently use moral authority to discount, judge, block, criticize, prevent, and not participate with the masculine solution or desires.  When women do not want to participate they will leave the we narrative.  When they require or desire participation they will say “we need to do this.”  and when they refuse to participate they will communicate tautologies of non relationship, “you need to use your own resources”  or, ” I think everybody should do what they are comfortable doing.”