NNTD Q&A

In which I answer 6 questions from a friend about my Non-Naive Trust Dance framework. I’ve said a lot of this before, but kind of all over the place, so here it is collected together, as yet another starting point.

The questions:

  1. What is the non-naive trust dance, and when are people doing it? (Is it a practice? A worldview? An explanatory theory?)
  2. What is it not? How do I tell between NNTD and closely related things?
  3. What is it good for? What will it help me do?
  4. How do I know when I am doing it, or not doing it?
  5. How do I learn how to do it better?
  6. What is it not helpful for? When should I use something else?

My experience of writing this post has caused me to have a sort of meta-level answer to a question I see behind all of these questions, which is “why is the NNTD so important? should I care?” And my answer is that I don’t actually think NNTD is that significant on its own, and that most people should care if it intrigues them and seems useful and not otherwise. What makes the NNTD important is that it’s a new & necessary puzzle piece for doing world-class trust-building, which is necessary for making progress on collective consciousness, and that is important. But if you’re not working on that, and NNTD doesn’t interest you, then maybe you want to put your attention elsewhere!

1. What is the non-naive trust dance, and when are people doing it?
(Is it a practice? A worldview? An explanatory theory?)

It is, perhaps unfortunately, all 3 of those things. I would say that in some sense it’s mostly a worldview or a theory, and any practice that emerges out of that could ultimately be described as simply being what it is. Certain practices make more or less sense in light of the theory, but it’s descriptive rather than prescriptive.

So as a worldview, the NNTD view sees all beings as constantly engaged in trust-dancing. “Trust” and “truth” have the same root, and trust can be thought of as essentially subjective truth, so trust-dancing with reality is figuring out what seems true from your vantage point. Where naivety comes in is that humans have a tendency to try to interfere with each others’ sense of what’s true, resulting in apparent trust that’s actually layered on top of repressed distrust.

As an explanatory theory, the NNTD explains why certain attempts to build trust consistently fail—which could be summarized as “they try to do so naively, so they either fail immediately or appear to work then fail later”.

As a practice, one could speak of the meta-level practice of keeping the worldview & theory in mind, while trust-dancing (ie while relating with oneself or others, ie always).

2. What is it not? How do I tell between NNTD and closely related things?

There are a few types of closely related things.

The NNTD is an articulation of the meta-protocol, and is not to be confused for a protocol. A protocol is a form, ie a set of scripts or behaviors, that says “we can make communication work (better) if we agree to do it this way”. NVC (NonViolent Communication) is a great protocol. Many protocols also work somewhat if used by only one party. The meta-protocol is an emptiness that says “right, but what about when that inevitably breaks down, whether because we want to use different protocols, or we’re conceiving of the supposedly-shared protocol differently, or the protocol is inadequate?”

The NNTD framework is my articulation of the meta-protocol, and is not to be confused for someone else’s articulation of the meta-protocol. Any articulation or instantiation of the meta-protocol is incomplete and has blindspots, and the measure of a given approach to the meta-protocol is how it navigates when those inevitably result in friction.

It’s helpful to remember that the NNTD emerged as a patch on a specific existing model which most people have never heard of since it was only used in a community I was part of. As a result, the most salient distinguishing features of NNTD from my perspective aren’t always meaningful or relevant to people who don’t already have the existing model. That model is also really good! So I want to share some version of it that has the patch applied. And I’m still figuring out the extent to which to frame that stuff as “part of NNTD” or as something else. Some of it untwists and simplifies itself with the patch applied, but I’m still figuring out how it all fits together.

More concretely, one thing that’s definitely not NNTD, however close it seems: any perspective that asserts or even implies that there’s a right way to communicate or relate, and that if Alice does those things and Bob doesn’t respond well, that there’s sort of nothing else Alice can do—that the latter person is defecting. Certain types of responses (or modes of being) are way more workable than others, and it’s possible to discern that someone is in quite a closed mode, but there’s never a point when there’s nothing you can do and you just have to wait for them to choose a different mindset. There’s only a point when you decide you’re done trying to come up with a new way to connect (eg to become an invalid target for their projection) either for now or for good.

3. What is it good for? What will it help me do?

Grokking the NNTD will augment whatever existing relational skills and techniques you have—protocols etc. Those will still work when then do, and when they fail, it will give you an orientation to respond creatively and courageously rather than getting stuck.

Relationships are really precious, and so it’s so vital to be able to meet others where they’re at, to build common ground and repair ruptures. Grokking the NNTD has made me way better at reconciliation pretty much across the board, whether an apology to a member of my co-housing complex for a guest’s loudness early in the morning, or a tangled conversation with an old friend where he was frustrated that I was theorizing about his frustrations with our interactions rather than being emotionally impacted. I know how to listen to people (when I remember to apply it and figure out how to do so) and it feels like something I want to do now, rather than effortful.

Grokking how the NNTD applies internally will help you listen to yourself, which is both intrinsically worthwhile and beautiful, and necessary for effectively trust-dancing with others. (see Internal Trust Dancing)

The more you learn to listen to yourself, the fewer unpredictable explosions will happen and the fewer reconciliations you may need, at least of a certain kind. A lot of the time when something goes wrong, when we look back we realized that we were ignoring a voice that was raising the concern well before things fell apart.

4. How do I know when I am doing it, or not doing it?

You’ll know you’re doing it when you can utterly respect that any way in which someone can’t trust you, they can’t trust you. Maybe they used to trust you in that way, but then something happened and now they can’t. Maybe other people trust you in that way (maybe you trust yourself) but they don’t. So your options are:

  • ask them to pretend to trust, or act as if, even though they don’t
  • do something or say something different, to see if that earns their trust (it may not, even if either or both of you think it should)
  • accept that for now, they can’t trust you in that way (and perhaps find a better boundary, given that)

You’ll know you’re doing it when you can accurately gauge how deeply someone trusts you (and vice versa) and either work within those boundaries or expand that trust by changing the reality they experience with you, not by ‘changing their mind’. This contrasts with trying to get people to ‘just trust you’ because you want them to trust you and you want to feel trustworthy, or because you think that they should trust you for some reason.

5. How do I learn how to do it better?

So there’s sort of two things here. One is “how do I get better at trust-building and trust-dancing in general?” and the other is “how do I deepen my practice of the NNTD framework in particular?” For some people, the leverage point for improving their trust-dancing might be in learning some specific protocol, such as NVC, or in practicing authentic relating.

But then, if you find that someone hates your NVC language when you talk about your observations and needs, or that they think your authentic reveals sound like bullshit, remember the meta-protocol principle: forms are just forms, and if the form isn’t working, let go of it and tune into the situation and try to figure out what will work. This involves respecting 

One specific way you can practice is by reframing anything frustrating someone says about you or your relationship, into the form “they can’t trust that X”. This could be thought of as a sort of advanced form of I-statements. I sometimes spell it out even more concretely, as “it would feel a particular way in their body to trust this, and they don’t feel that”.

Some examples:

If someone says “you’re always late“, in some sense what they probably mean is something more like “I can’t trust you to be on time [or to let me know, or…]”.

If someone says “you’re not listening“, in some sense what they mean is “I can’t trust that you’re listening“. This is a classic intractable conflict, because they can’t know if you’re listening (and you may know you are). But what they do know is that there is a thing it would feel like if they knew you were listening, and they don’t feel that. You can’t argue with that! And you don’t need to. You can focus instead on creating the feedback loop that would allow them to see that you’re listening (to the extent you in fact are!)

If someone says “this Nonviolent Communication is bullshit”, in some sense what they’re saying is “I can’t trust that there isn’t some sort of hostile intent hidden under this supposedly nonviolent language” or even “I can’t trust that something about this interaction won’t [emotionally] harm me [perhaps accidentally]”. You might have reason to think otherwise, but maybe they’re used to people communicating similarly to you in some way that fucks with them.

This might be easiest to do first in a retrospective sort of way. Think back to a recent conflict or tense interaction you had with someone, and try to imagine what it was they couldn’t trust about you. You can also reframe frustrations you’ve had with others as being about what you can’t trust about them, and self-validate that you can’t trust it, even if there’s a demand (implicitly or explicitly) from them that you trust.

Once you’re familiar with this shift, you might be able to make this move live in a conversation, for your own distrust or someone else’s. Whether you use the specific language here (“you/I can’t trust that…”) is less important than seeing what that implies and communicating in light of that.

Going meta here, suppose someone says “idk what you’re trying to do with all this “you can’t trust” language but it seems like manipulation”. Internally you may want to note that it seems they can’t trust that you’re not somehow manipulating them, but externally you’re… probably going to want to use different language when you respond. I’d probably say something like “Okay, legit. doesn’t seem that way to me but if it seems that way to you then I’m not gonna ask you to see it differently.”

6. What is it not helpful for? When should I use something else?

If you’ve got enough trust for the situation you’re in, and things are flowing smoothly, just roll with it! No need to break out the distrust-untangling kit that is NNTD. Same if your intentional community has processes that it uses and the processes are working, and there isn’t any sense of going in circles.

Also, as in the “going meta” example above, if you’re trying to “use NNTD” and it doesn’t seem to be working, try something else! There’s no right way to do it, there’s just what works in context. (Secretly, this is kind of the spirit of NNTD in the first place. But you may have some useful feedback for me about a way in which some NNTD lens backfired for you!)

Honestly, while a lot of my writing is written to be relevant to everyone, there’s only one group of people that I’d recommend prioritize majorly grokking the NNTD, which is people who are trying to do leading edge work on cultural evolution, eg with Game B, or what Robert Gilman calls The Planetary Era, or if you’re trying to create a “noncoercive” culture.

What is collective consciousness and why does it matter?

I scheduled this post to go live as a showtime, then realized I wasn’t sure if “consciousness” is the right way to even frame this, but I let it go live anyway. In some sense it could be called “sanity”, but that has its own challenging connotations. I use both terms sort of synonymously below; I might decide later that yet a third word is better. There’s also a lot more that I can—and will—say about this!

I figure collective consciousness can be summarized as the capacity for a group of people to:

  • see the world clearly together, integrating their individual perspectives into a larger whole
  • have a shared train of thought that finds and makes sense of what is relevant
  • make and enact decisions together in ways that adequately incorporate all information and careabouts that all members have

(Jordan Hall’s 3 facets of sovereignty: perception, sensemaking and agency.)

I like to say “Utopia is when everyone just does what they feel like doing, and the situation is such that that everyone doing what they feel like doing results in everyone’s needs getting met.” On a smaller group, a sane We is when everyone in the We does what they feel like in the context of the We, and they are sufficiently coherently attuned to each other and the whole such that each member’s needs/careabouts get met.

In some sense, obviously, if there existed an X such that if you supported the X it would cause everything you want to be achieved better than you could manage on your own, you’d want to support the X. Obviously, from the X’s perspective, it would want to support the individuals’ wants/needs/etc to get met so that they have more capacity to continue supporting it supporting them supporting it [ad infinitum]. This is the upward spiral, and it’s made out of attending to how to create win-wins on whatever scale.

As far as I can tell, there can’t exist such an X that is fully outside the individual(s) it is supporting. In order for it to actually satisfy what you actually care about, consistently and ongoingly, it needs a direct feedback loop into what you care about, which may not be what you can specify in advance. Thus you need to be part of it. The system gives you what you need/want, not what you think you need/want, in the same way that you do this for yourself when you’re on top of things. Like if you eat something and it doesn’t satisfy you, you get something else, because you can tell. (This is related to goodhart and to the AI alignment puzzle).

Fortunately, as far as I can tell, we can learn to form We systems that are capable of meeting this challenge. They are composed of ourselves as individuals, paying attention to ourselves, each other and the whole in particular ways. Such a We can exist in an ongoing long-term explicit committed way (eg a marriage) or one-off task-based unremarkable ad hoc way (eg a group gathers to get someone’s car unstuck, then disappears) or something in between (eg some people who meet out on deep playa at burning man and end up being buddies for the rest of the day).

What does it feel like?

» read the rest of this entry »

An illustration of the adjacent-possible meta-team vision

While queuing up the 100× vision post last week, I realized I hadn’t published another vision doc that I wrote awhile back and had been sharing with people, so I figured out would be good to get that out too. In contrast to the 100× vision, which is imagining the 2030s, this one is the adjacent-possible version of the vision—the one where if you squint at the current reality from the right angle, it’s already happening. I wrote this one originally in November 2020.

Preface

This is intended to evoke one possibility, not to fully capture what seems possible or likely.

In fact, it is highly likely that what happens will be different from what’s below.

Relatedly, and also central to this whole thing: if you notice while reading this that you feel attracted towards parts of it and averse to other elements (even if you can’t name quite what) then awesome!

Welcome that.

Integrating everyone’s aversion or dislike or distrust or whatever is vital to steering towards the actual, non-goodharted vision. And of course your aversion might be such that it doesn’t make sense for you to participate in this (or not at this phase, or not my version of it). My aim is full fractal buy-in, without compromise.

The diagram

A diagram depicting 3 nested circles, each with people in them, and different projects that people are working on.
An illustration that I made for a friend to try to point at my vision. This piece of writing was then written to explain the illustration.

This diagram (except for the part where one of the people is marked as me 😉) could apply to any network of people working on projects together, that exists around a closed membrane, but I want to elaborate a bit more specifically about what I have in mind.

The Collaborative self-energizing meta-team vision public articulation 2020-10-19 is describing the outermost regions of the above diagram, without any reference to the existence of the membranes. The open-network-ness is captured by this tweet:

This is a beacon—want to work with people doing whatever most deeply energizes you? Join us!…how? There’s no formal thing.

Joining = participating in this attitude.

The attitude is one of collaboration in the sense of working together, and in particular working together in ways that everybody involved is excited about and finds energizing and life-giving. Where people are motivated both by the work they’re doing as part of the collaboration, and by the overall vision. That’s not to say it’ll all be easy or pleasant or straightforward—working with people is challenging! And that’s where the other layers come in.

I’m now going to jump to the innermost, closed membrane, because the dotted-line teal group kind of exists as a natural liminal area between that and the wider group.

» read the rest of this entry »

The meta-protocol for human trust-building

A protocol is a set of behaviors and expectations for interaction, whether explicit, such as Non-Violent Communication, or just the unspoken cultural norms of any social group. Shared protocols can dramatically increase people’s ability to collaborate and trust each other. But trying to get everyone to operate the same way is imperial, like trying to get everyone to speak the same language, and thus generates a ton of resistance if you try it.

The meta-protocol is the translation process, the dance by which trust is built between and within people. The meta-protocol is actually relevant even if two people think they’re already following the same protocol, because inasmuch as that protocol is inadequate… 

  • not able to be used for a particular situation
  • ambiguous and understood differently by each person
  • a person isn’t fully bought into the protocol as stated thus is unable to consistently use it

…the meta-protocol is what allows them to notice that and iteratively improve whatever they’re doing and patch those gaps. (Such patches might produce a new ongoing implicit or explicit protocol, or not.)

No matter how perfect a hypothetical protocol might be, it’s impossible to systematically address everything that arises in the complex experience of being human together. There will be gaps, including during the learning process for how people can come to use a protocol consistently. The meta-protocol is whatever fully and completely answers the question of “well, then what do you do in the meantime, or when those gaps occur?”

» read the rest of this entry »

thinking that rejects other thinking

I want to point at a style of thinking that I’ll call [[thinking that rejects other thinking]].

(not sure this is the right name but it’s what I’m going with for now)

It’s a hard thing to point at.

Many have tried to point at [[thinking that rejects other thinking]], in many ways (and with many terms for it) and most of the ways that people try to point at it end up resulting in people ending up engaging in [[thinking that rejects other thinking]] about the very concept of [[thinking that rejects other thinking]], despite attempting not to. Sometimes the original articulator isn’t doing this but almost always the people around them still are. Usually the original articulator is too, at least a little.

This is unfortunate, not because [[thinking that rejects other thinking]] is bad, but because then they miss all the wisdom hiding in whatever other thinking they’re dismissing or distrusting because they’re seeing it as [[thinking that rejects other thinking]]!

Symmetrically, this is also unfortunate because it makes their own wisdom less accessible to those whose thinking they’re dismissing or distrusting.

On a meta-level, this is furthermore unfortunate because it creates a bunch of muddle around the very thing they’re trying to point at, which is an important thing to point at. (I clearly think so since I’m here trying to point at it.)

Perhaps, instead of pointing at [[thinking that rejects other thinking]], I will point at what kind of thinking isn’t [[thinking that rejects other thinking]].

Huh—perhaps I already have, by how I wrote the above paragraphs.

(If you want, you can re-read the above and feel into how I feel satisfied with it as a way of pointing at this kind of thinking while doing something different than thinking that rejects thinking myself. I genuinely wasn’t sure, when I started writing this 10 minutes ago, how I’d find a way to do it, and I feel pretty satisfied with how it turned out.)


But hey, I’m a verbal dude, and while ineffability abounds, I think it’s worth spelling this pattern out way more explicitly, giving some examples, and talking about how to navigate more effectively. So keep reading for that.

» read the rest of this entry »

Fractal Home

I’ve just moved into a new home (just north of Victoria, BC), and it seemed like a good time to publish a piece of writing I drafted in January about the nature of Home.

In the terms of my previous blog post, it could be summarized as something like “Home is where you have non-naive meta-trust”.

Naturally, people really really want this sense of Home, although they may think it’s impossible, theoretically or just pragmatically. In general, most people don’t have environments where they have deep meta-trust, and don’t have a workable roadmap towards creating such environments. But it’s possible, given enough shared attention and an adequate toolkit, to co-create this sense of Home.

And, moreover, the process of a group consciously co-creating Home can itself produce the feeling of relief that being Home produces, [[in the meantime]], if everyone feels a sense that the group is doing its best to take into consideration the careabouts of each group member—before it has actually solved all the problems. This is a collective version of what Mark Lippmann calls the “Handledness is Already Success” principle.

When I use the word “need” or “want” or “careabout” or “desire” in this piece of writing, I’m pointing at, fundamentally, a cybernetic control system set point. What makes something a need, vs a want, might be essentially, as my friend Catherio put it: “if this goes unmet, I will make substantial changes to my life”. These careabouts include things on every level from psychological safety & self-actualization & meaning, to food & water & shelter… and probably stuff Maslow forget to mention!

I am Home to the extent that (and in the ways that)

  1. I can relax knowing that the systems around me aren’t going to subvert my needs & wants (whether malevolently or carelessly) and will in general support them.
  2. I feel, and am, empowered to make changes to the situation in order to care for my needs.

This applies to any context, not just to a house. In particular, it can also apply to a group of people or a relationship. So I’m not talking about “home” as contrasted with “work” and “third places” here.

This applies to all sorts of meta dimensions but it’s also very concrete:

» read the rest of this entry »

Non-Naive Trust Dance—why the name?

“If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowance for their doubting too” —Rudyard Kipling

I’m intending to write a whole sequence of posts that express various elements of the Non-Naive Trust Dance framework I discovered last year, and thought that a good piece to write early on would be an introduction that talks about why it has the name it does, answering in brief these three questions:

  • What do I mean by “trust”?
  • What do I mean by “non-naive trust”?
  • Why “trust-dancing”?

I suppose it’s worth noting that I don’t remember choosing a name for this thing when I discovered it last year—this was just sort of the obvious thing to call it as I was seeing it from my perspective at the time.

a graphic of two people dancing, with those questions overlaid
drawing by Silvia Bastos at my commission

What do I mean by “trust”?

My context for thinking about trust comes from my longtime colleague Jean Robertson, who points out that all trust is fundamentally trust in one’s own experience, or “self-trust” for short. Trust also needs to be qualified as trust in something in particular. There’s no general “I trust you” (or not). As someone put it:

“I trust Alice to return a $10 loan but not a $10,000 loan, Bob to return a $10,000 loan but not to babysit an infant, Carol to babysit but not with my house key, Dave with my house key but not my intimate secrets, and Ellen with my intimate secrets but not to return a $10 loan. I trust Frank if a friend vouches for him, a taxi driver as long as he’s displaying his license, and Gail as long as she hasn’t been drinking.”

From Bruce Schneier, Liars and Outliers — via Kaj Sotala, “Don’t trust people, trust their components

Elaborating on this, what the person is saying here is “based on trusting my experience of these various folks, I have predictions of what they would do, that I’m prepared to base my decisions on.” If Alice wanted to borrow $10,000, or Bob offered to babysit, this person would then be faced with a situation where their friend would be making a bid to be trusted in a way that the person actually doesn’t trust them.

That’s a tough situation to be in, particularly if it doesn’t feel easy to talk about.

» read the rest of this entry »

NNTD pith instructions exploration

I keep mentioning this “Non-Naive Trust Dance” framework I’ve discovered/invented but I haven’t yet published a proper introduction to it (despite many half-finished drafts)—update: here’s one! A friend of mine recently wrote in a group chat:

Would/could you write pith instructions for NNTD? I’m curious but haven’t dived in, and would be more likely to if I could get a more concentrated sense of the flavor of it.

For those not familiar with the term “pith instructions”, it refers to condensed, direct, pithy core instructions, often for a meditation practice. Before I had the chance to reply, another friend linked my yearly review blog post 2020: Free to Dance, and the first friend replied:

Yeah that’s helpful! It definitely gets at the problem statement. I still feel like I’m missing something about what actually goes into doing NNTD.

It can be hard to give quick general instructions for various reasons, but fortunately I already had a tweet that I wrote in response to a prompt from my friend Romeo:

Challenge: make an elevator pitch for your current theory of healthy human relationships.

Hard mode: don’t reference existing popular theories or merely reword one of them.

@RomeoStevens76 on twitter

Here, with some tiny edits, is the elevator pitch I came up with for the NNTD (which is definitely a theory of healthy human relationships!)

  • respect that there are ways in which you can’t trust each other
    • and gently inquire into why that is
    • not trying to change behavior directly
  • trusting that new more workable behavior will emerge
    • when you can see why it makes sense to be doing what you’re doing
    • and see its impacts on others

I shared that in the group chat and offered to elaborate on anything listed in [[core principles of the [[NNTD]]]] and a discussion ensued between me and my friend. And so we hereby continue a trend of blog posts composed of lightly edited conversations, although this one is more theory than practice.

Friend: Ooh, this elevator pitch is really good! Interesting that there’s a meta-trust element too, in the process itself. I needed something like that, as opposed to the core principles page, which feels too big/complicated/rabbit-holey. It’s just very instantly practical.

» read the rest of this entry »

Internal Trust Dancing case study 2: scheduling & cancelling dates

A long-time reader of my blog reached out to me after reading Internal Trust Dancing case study: EA & relaxation and asked if I’d do a session, and I said sure! I’m mostly not taking new coaching clients at the moment, but I want to refine and share this technique so I have some small availability for one-off sessions on this. Let me know if you’re also interested!

This case study, shared with permission of course, is a bit longer, since it’s a transcript of an hour’s conversation. I’ve removed a couple tangents but almost all of it is important and it could be misleading to leave out almost any of the lines, so instead this is just a 6000 word post. Read it if you want! It gets juicier about halfway through, for what it’s worth. I do also have more commentary which I can share with folks who are interested.

I’ve annotated the transcript in the same style as the Therapeutic Reconsolidation Process case studies in Unlocking the Emotional Brain, with 7 steps (ABC123V), while trying to not get too shoehorn-y about it. Doing this annotation helped me get clear on what I was actually doing—the level I’m working on wasn’t actually obvious to me until I wrote it out. The steps, for reference, are:

  • accessing sequence
    • Step A: symptom identification
    • Step B: retrieval of symptom-necessitating emotional schema
    • Step C: identification of accessible contradictory knowledge
  • transformation sequence
    • Step 1: reactivation of symptom-necessitating emotional schema
    • Step 2: juxtaposed, vivid experience of contradictory knowledge
    • Step 3: repetition of the juxtaposition experience
  • Step V: verification of change by observation of critical markers

And of course M is me and C is my coaching client.


Internal differentiation—each part taking its own perspective

As discussed in the previous case study, in order to have conversations internally, it’s necessary for the parts to see that they’re parts. Here they each get the chance to speak to their perspective briefly. We don’t go too deeply or intensely into either part’s viewpoint, because we want them both in the room together, and they may not trust each other enough to go deeper. This

C: So there’s one specific problem I want to look at… I ended a relationship 6-8 months ago. And we’re still friends, that’s okay there. A couple months ago I decided to start dating again, so I’ve been scheduling dates, etc. But then, when I get to the point of meeting someone, I don’t want to. And I end up cancelling. This has happened 6 times in the last 2 months. And then I have a date coming up this Saturday but I’ll probably cancel it on Friday.

[This conversation was on Wednesday—there’s an email at the end of this post with an update. This simple articulation of an oscillation from compartmentalization is essentially Step A: symptom identification. This was a conveniently precise and concrete oscillation. However, note that we’re going to focus on the compartmentalization itself, not on the content of the conflict. So for what follows, Step B: retrieval of symptom-necessitating emotional schema, we’re not asking “why is it necessary to cancel the date?” we’re asking “why can’t these two perspectives talk to each other?” The fact that his parts are stuck in a tug of war rather than co-creatively finding a solution to this conflict is the symptom. This is, in general, the focus of internal trust-dancing.]

» read the rest of this entry »

Internal Trust Dancing case study 1: EA & relaxation

This post consists primarily of a lightly-edited text of a chat-based coaching exchange between Malcolm (M) and a participant (P) in a recent Goal-Crafting Intensive session, published with permission.

It serves several purposes I’ve been wanting to write about, which I’ll list here and describe in more detail at the end:

  • Share an initial model of Internal Trust-Dancing, which is also relevant to interpersonal non-naive trust-dancing
  • Talk about the importance & relevance of Perceptual Control Theory & conflict
  • Provide a Goal-Crafting Intensive coaching sample

Without further ado, here’s the conversation we had:


P: I’m thinking useful next steps might be planning out how to explore the above; the ML-work will come relatively naturally as part of my PhD, whereas the science communication could take some fleshing out.

I feel a little discouraged and sad at the prospect of planning it out.

M: Mm—curious if you have a sense of what’s feeling discouraging or sad about the planning process

P: My sense is that if I plan it out it’s somehow mandatory? Like it becomes an “assignment” rather than a goal, like I have to persevere through even on the days where I don’t want to.

M: Here’s a suggestion: write a plan out on a piece of paper, then burn it
(inspired by the quote: “Plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”)

P: That was fun! I guess I’m very much a “systems” man, I have this fear that nothing will get done if it’s not in the system. But that might be detrimental motivationally for stuff like this.

M: Hm, it sounds like you have a tension between wanting to track everything in the system but then feeling burdened by the system instead of feeling like it’s helping you

P: That definitely strikes a cord (as well as your points, George, about separating “opportunities” from tasks). I guess I’m worried that I won’t get as much done if I’m not obligated to do it, or that it’s somehow “weak” to not commit strongly. But for long term growth, contribution and personal health, that’s probably not the way to go.

M: Yeah! If you want, we could do some introspection and explore where those worries come from!
(we could guide you through that a bit)

» read the rest of this entry »
A portrait of Malcolm Ocean

I'm Malcolm Ocean.

I'm trying to figure out how humans work so I can help make humanity work. More about me.

Focus on what matters
Check out Complice, a web-app that I built to help people achieve their personal & professional goals. Complice logo
Follow me on Twitter!