I'm disappointed, as I was hoping to get some feedback in terms of how to phrase what I intended to communicate (Here's a hypothetical example to show you how the interaction feels from my side) so that what is received is not a convoluted version of what I intended (I know your intent better than you do, Marcus, and you are being intentionally malicious.) I remain completely baffled as to how that happened. Absent explanation or feedback, I have no idea how try and fix the dysfunction, so I'm left with avoidance as an option. If anyone has ideas or thoughts, I'm all ears.
So, shifting gears. Binger, you provided some running commentary on this interaction. And, if I recall correctly, you and I both see control as a pervasive issue in personal interaction. But it seems to me that there are all kinds of things one could try to control in an interaction. Another thing I'd like to stick a pin is thinking through the circumstances under which control issues become an impediment to clear communication and, when there is a struggle over control in an interaction, what exactly are the parties attempting to control?
But I owe you a bunch of responses, I think.
Binger wrote:Neil Peart says that if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. Maybe we need a version of that for moderators. If you choose not to moderate you still have made a choice.
This distinction you are highlighting is part of the model. It is a HUGE part of the model. The reaction that is extreme is usually not thought out and is usually just us doing what we do, without a lot of thought. Trigger happens. BOOM! The blood surges and the anxiety builds and we react. We STRIKE! we submit. We accept the victim role and pout and blame and gaslight. We pretend we are cool. We do what we do. What you are describing is a healthier and thoughtful response.
I'm not familiar with Peart, but I agree that not
responding is generally a choice. In the case of the Biden meme, I explicitly considered not responding. I'm conflicted with the from: post. On the one hand, I didn't recognize the post as a communication to or about me. On the other, I could have chosen to acknowledge the post in any number of ways, especially as it appeared to me like what I'd previously asked you to do. So maybe my nonresponse was more like a
reaction. I dunno. But I think I get the
response/
reaction distinction and how it functions in the model.
Binger wrote:Leading to your next point, these extreme reactions are all a form of control. ALL of them. Even submission. Even imitation. Even victimization. Particularly aggression. In the example you used, you were exactly right in your perception that pausing and not doing anything was more controlled than a flash-bang reaction. I hope we continue to distinguish the differences between these forms of control and responses.
Okay, I'm gonna do my describe my understanding to you for confirmation thing. You post the Biden meme. From my perspective, the model labels that the
trigger in this portion of our interaction. It then classifies what I do into
reactions or
responses. One of the distinctions between
reactions and
responses is that the former happens with little to no conscious choice -- its more more driven by emotion in contrast to reflection or reason. A
response involves a conscious choice among perceived alternatives -- something like that.
The model classifies
reactions into four categories:
aggression,
submission,
imitation, and
victimization. Each
reaction is a form of control. Each category of
reaction has a corresponding category of
response, which we haven't gotten to yet. Ballpark?
And questions. Are
responses also a form of control? Can they be? If I make a conscious decision to use passive
aggression intentionally as a strategy, would the model treat that as a
reaction, a
response, or a combination of the two?
I've generally thought that
aggression, whether active or passive, functions as a method of control. Up to this point, I've come to view passive-
aggression as similar to the model's concept of
reaction -- a reflexive, learned behavior that the actor is generally unaware of. And it's not hard for me to think about active
aggression and
victimization the same way. But I run into a mental brick wall with
submission and
imitation as methods of control. Opening a can of worms: what are they a method of exercising control over?
Binger wrote: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All of that. You asked what I expected or intended. My intent was to make a point that WE are not done with it and I am injecting myself into that as much as I can. My use of that word, in all caps, was intentional and meant to imply this element of control. There is no other explanation than this was me either taking or influencing control, and failing to take it but influencing enough that we are still discussing it.
I want to add emphasis on your final sentence in the previous quoted section: "Emotionally, if feels like a power struggle." I hope you or anyone else never forgets that line and that feeling. That is the point of setting conditions and these extremes. That is exactly the point. It is meant to have an emotional feeling and an emotional force. Aggression is meant to hurt, that is the point. Victimization is meant to manipulate, that is the point. Submission is meant to keep some control, by relinquishing and forcing someone to take control. That sounds bizarre, but if I force you to be in charge, I am in effect, controlling you. Imitation, particularly in leadership, is really hurtful and harmful. It is funny when dudes pretend they are cool, it is not funny when the CEO is pretending to know what he is doing as the company gets driven into a ditch.
Hmm, got ahead of myself with my questions. If I'm understanding, control can also be an element in
responses. Or the initial piece of an interaction (although I suppose that could be viewed as a
response to the end of the last interaction). **Shrugs** So, part of your intent in posting the Biden meme is to attempt to control the content of our future interactions? If that's the case, I didn't perceive it that way. Do you think that made it easier for me to
respond rather than
react? Put another way, I didn't feel the things I would normally feel if I felt threatened in some way. Maybe that helped me to take a beat and think about how to respond?
Hypothesis: most interactions involve some attempt to assert control over something. Using the same lens as we did for your posting of the meme, part of the intent of my response was to control the form of your next response (as opposed to some interaction down the road). I wanted an explanation of the meme to avoid misinterpreting it. Or maybe it was something else -- perhaps an attempt to control perceptions of our interaction. In other words, the performative part of my response was something like "I'm the reasonable guy in this conversation." Interesting frame of reference. Maybe helpful.
Running with this notion for second. I don't think we really had a conflict in our interaction. Could that be due, in part, to the fact that we were attempting to assert control over different things? Is a control battle over the same thing a significant contributor to conflict and failure to communicate? Hmm. Grab another pin.
I'm getting tripped up by your comments in the form "Aggression is meant to hurt, that is the point." In the model, aggression is a reaction. Something having a point sounds to me like intention. If I amended your sentence to "The function of aggression is to hurt, that is its effect", would you consider that simply another way of describing the model, or have I changed it in some material way?
I think I understand the concept of submission as a method of control. I'm still having a hard time with imitation. How does imitation function as control? I do get the harmful part.
I'm going to stop there for today. Your next section addresses the two axes on which the four categories are based, so that feels like a natural breaking point. And my brain is tired. You don't have to stop on my account. I'll catch up sometime. Or i won't. Who knows?