Threads

A 2×2 of sensemaking vs controlling in conversation

19 tweets · May 2020 · 151 likes · 10 retweets · read on Twitter

New 2×2 I'm exploring. It's important in any convo to be able to: - report reality as one sees it - find out what others know Whether you do that in a sensemaking mode or controlling mode will affect what's possible emotionally, relationally, AND on the information level.

Backstory: 10 days ago I shared the right half of the 2×2 and got a ton of diverse & intriguing replies suggesting what to do with the rest of it. I've refined the ideas since then, & I'm still very open to feedback/critique/suggestions on this thread 🚀

Malcolm Ocean 🏴‍☠️ @Malcolm_Ocean ·

Just had half a 2×2 flash into my head, but I'm not sure what the other half wants to be. Maybe a few possibilities... Anyway, figured I'd just put it out & ask: What's the ↕️ vertical axis? What's the 🌸 pink (upper-left) quadrant? What's the 🍊 orange (lower-left) quadrant?

A lot of the ideas (including mine) for the left side ended up being about lying or bullshit, but of course there are more things one can do in a conversation than lie or tell the truth:      one can ask questions!  

Malcolm Ocean 🏴‍☠️ @Malcolm_Ocean ·

@Jeanvaljean689 @DougTataryn @chriswaterguy Oh right, ofc! L↔R axis doesn't have to be "lies"/"truths" at all! Right could still be "report reality as I see it" and left could be like... any other type of move one might do in a conversation, such as "ask a question", which might put 🌸 interview (UL) 🍊 interrogate (LL)

And when that clicked into place, it illuminated with much more clarity *why* the right side of the 2×2 had felt valuable to me in the first place: I knew I wanted to report reality as I saw it, but found I was getting confusing these two kinds of *how*.

I've long had an assumption from my STEM/rationalist background: as long as I'm reporting reality as I see it, I'm... communicating in good faith, essentially. This has tripped me up when I have confused it with the "revealing" move that's central here at @liminal_agency

This confusion has been a mess for everybody involved. For instance, me saying "I want to reveal something" but then proceeding to speak in a way that's still hooked into trying to control the other person, not recognizing (in the moment) that that's antithetical to revealing!

So! Distinguishing these explicitly (which I was starting to do before the 2×2) is helping a lot. I'm learning to feel the difference between saying something:  🔴 "so that you'll change behavior / see I'm right" (arguing) vs  🔵 "to create more shared context" (revealing)

Then likewise, when seeking to understand why someone is doing/saying something that makes no sense to me, I'm learning to feel the difference between:  🟠 trying to expose how they're confused/wrong vs  🟢 trying to see what sense it DOES make to them

QC @QiaochuYuan ·

the general problem i have with advice of the form “do this different thing” is that it consistently fails to respect the reasons why people are not already doing the different thing

Noticing when I'm doing 🔵 vs 🔴 (/ 🟢 vs 🟠) and what the impact is of each, has been insightful. Also I've had times where I thought I was spaciously revealing, but then I didn't get the response I want and I got frustrated, and realized I was still fundamentally arguing.

I've also been exploring consciously practicing them, particularly treating 🟢 as a skill to hone by conducting explicit interviews with friends & colleagues. The frame helps me be really clear that I'm there to draw out the coherence in their thinking, not to invalidate it.

If you try any of this yourself, I would love to hear what you learn from doing it. Btw: My previous tweets were originally phrased in the imperative ("so, when [you are] seeking to... notice whether you...") but then I decided to reveal it instead rather than try to convince

There are some subtle phrasing bits here—you'll notice I said "convince" in the previous tweet, not "argue". I think "convince" better fits what 🔴 is *trying* to do, but eg we can't say "I am convincing" unless I *succeed*, whereas we can say "I am arguing".

OT1H, words are just handles... OTOH, they do also matter! On the gripping hand, I can't ultimately control what people will call things.

Science Banana @literalbanana ·

Nobody voted on what things are called - people who needed to refer to them just gave them nicknames until one stuck

Here's a version where I tried putting more words in each of the boxes, possibly with the bold one representing the action, and the other one(s) representing more like... the overall dynamic? idk, it's kinda messy Internally, I feel clear on what 4 dynamics I'm pointing at.

I also found myself noting that those who are coming from some other culture or set of personal patterns might benefit from seeing some more power-UNDER options for the either/or region. Not sure what exactly to call them (the 🟤 & 🟣) but here's what I've got—what do you think?

This alternate power-under version of the chart also helps illustrate how "revealing" is NOT "confessing", to anyone who might have been making *that* confusion (an easy one to make within either/or thinking)

For more context on the term "revealing", you might check out this blog post of mine from 5 years ago (!) malcolmocean.com/2015/06/reveal…

Oh and here are some slides with the graphics, that have commenting/suggesting turned on. Feel free to expand on these & develop your own ideas! Credit appreciated (~CC-BY) because it deepens the context etc, but if you have a reason to do otherwise...🆗 docs.google.com/presentation/d…

We hope you enjoyed this Penultimate Draft Edition™ of Malcolm working with the garage door up 🙃

Malcolm Ocean 🏴‍☠️ @Malcolm_Ocean ·

@cortexfutura @dthorson @tim_adalin @voiceclub_ @cognazor @JaredJanes I think that this resonates deeply with the "work with the garage door open" aesthetic. Screenshot below is from @andy_matuschak notes.andymatuschak.org/About_these_no… Tweet below is @eriktorenberg: twitter.com/eriktorenberg/…