This is a good intro to a serious problem for many people. Well-worth reading.
Tag: Communication Errors
5 Psych Disorders Have Common Genetics
This article is quite good. It describes a large study that seems to show fairly conclusively that five of our most important psychological disorders have a close genetic foundation. The five disorders are autism, ADHD, bipolar disorder, depression, and schizophrenia.
This supports the model that nature (genes) when stressed (nurture) can lead to a variety of psychological disorders, which when diagnosed by behavioral manifestations alone may seem to be very different.
In my view, a major psychological stressor that affects virtually all people is the low resolution of the language of interpersonal communication. In sensitive individuals, this stressor can and often does lead to psychological problems.
By “low resolution,” I mean that our language (gesture, symbols, words, semiotics) of interpersonal communication is crude compared to what our brains/minds are capable of. The crude nature of this language forces us to blur subtleties in communication, and this leads to confusion and dissatisfaction, which in turn may manifest as a psychological disorder.
No doubt, some instances of the five disorders described have a strong genetic foundation making them all but inevitable. But all things human can be understood as lying on a spectrum of varying degrees. Thus, most human beings at one time or another will experience aspects of one or more of these disorders due to problems in their interpersonal communications.
Edit. Here is another article on this subject: Same Genetic Basis Found in 5 Types of Mental Disorders.
Peace of mind
In my relationship with my partner, my peace of mind is very much dependent on her wisdom. And the same is true for her with respect to me.
This is why it is of paramount importance that FIML partners be able to depend on each other to bring up contretemps the moment they occur.
A contretemps is defined in FIML practice as a misunderstanding or potential misunderstanding that arises during interpersonal communication. It is often characterized by an emotional jangle, a sudden feeling of being insulted, demeaned, threatened, lied to, etc.
FIML practice is designed to catch contretemps the moment they happen.
Contretemps tend to happen due to how we habitually listen to other people. When we are able to examine all contretemps that arise in our interactions with our partner, we will soon discover that they tend to be of a few general types. Once we see this and understand that they are arising in our own mind and were not the actual intentions of the speaker, they will begin to occur less often and eventually stop.
Deep peace of mind comes in FIML practice when you are certain that your partner is able to recognize jangles and contretemps the moment they happen and that they will bring them up immediately. This is the wisdom of my partner that I depend on.
Peace of mind is knowing that your partner is not thinking some weird stuff about you, and knowing that they know neither are you thinking some weird stuff about them.
You can assert that you don’t think weird things about each other, you can vow not to do it, you can feel that your partner is not doing it, you can trust them, but there is no substitute for knowing that your partner is not doing it and knowing that your partner has the means to deal with any weird thought, no matter how trivial, the moment it arises.
Why we use the term semiotics
The reason we use the term semiotics on this site is when FIML partners do a FIML query, the data in their minds at the moment(s) in question is best described as raw semiotics. That is, it is the raw material that makes up the composite of consciousness at the moment(s) in question. This material, or data, can be sharply focused, vague, irrelevant to the subject at hand, emotional, associative, organized, disorganized, and so on. When partners get good at observing this data accurately and describing it to each other, they will find that much of it, if not all of it, is connected to a psycho-semiotic network that underlies awareness and gives rise to it. Understanding this network is extremely valuable and will provide partners with great insights into how and why they feel, think, and behave as they do. It is very difficult (and I think impossible) to understand this network through solitary pursuits only. The reason for this is a solitary mind will fool itself. In contrast, two minds working together will be able to observe this network with much greater accuracy. Language, semiotics, and emotion are fundamentally interpersonal operations, so it is reasonable to expect that deep comprehension of these operations will be best achieved through interpersonal activity. ABN
Error correction
While reading David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity, I came across the following sentence:
What is needed is a system that takes for granted that errors will occur, but corrects them once they do—a case of ‘problems are inevitable, but they are soluble’ at the lowest level of information-processing emergence. (p. 141)
This statement comes from the chapter “The Jump to Universality,” in which Deutsch argues that “error correction is essential in processes of potentially unlimited length.”
Error correction is fundamental to FIML practice. In fact, the nuts-and-bolts of FIML practice could be described as being little more than a method for correcting errors “at the lowest level of information-processing” during interpersonal communication. This level is “the lowest” because FIML deals primarily with very short segments of speech/communication. In many posts, we have called these segments “psychological morphemes” or the “smallest speech/communication error” we can reliably identify and agree upon with our partner.
If you try to tackle bigger errors—though this can be done sometimes—you frequently run into the problem of your subject becoming too vague or ill-defined to be rationally discussable.
I haven’t read enough of Deutsch’s book to be sure of what he means by “universality,” but I do think (at this point) that FIML is universal in the sense that it will clear up interpersonal communication errors between any two qualified partners. “Qualified” here means that partners care about each other, want to optimize their relationship, and have enough time to do FIML practice.
We all demand that our computers be error-free, that buildings and bridges be constructed without error, that science work with error-free data as much as possible. But when it comes to communication with the person we care about most, do we even talk about wanting a method of error correction, let alone actually using one?
You can’t correct big errors if you have no method for correcting errors that occur “at the lowest level of information-processing,” to use Deutsch’s phrase. Once you can correct errors at this level, you will find that you and your partner are much better able to tackle bigger questions/errors/complexes. This happens because having the ability to reliably do small error-correcting gives you the capacity to discuss bigger issues without getting lost in a thicket of small mistakes.
Your ability to talk to each other becomes “universal” in the sense that you can tackle any subject together and are not tethered to static ideas and assumptions about what either of you really “means.” As mentioned many times on these pages, FIML does not tell you how to think or what to believe. In this sense, it is a universal system that allows you and your partner to explore existence in any way you choose.
To use Deutsch’s words again, “error correction is essential in processes of potentially unlimited length.” Your relationship with your partner can and should be a “processes of potentially unlimited” growth, and error correction is essential to that process.
Interesting page on UFOs by a historian of the subject
Here is an interesting and well-documented Q&A page on UFOs: I research the history of UFO reports and investigations.
Buddhism and ethical signalling
Buddhism is very much a system of ethics. Buddhist practice is founded on the Five Precepts of refraining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and the irresponsible use of alcohol.
In most Buddhist traditions, these precepts are often taught as if they were fundamental to the workings of the universe. But how can morality be fundamental to the workings of the universe? How does it really even matter to human beings?
If we think of a human being as a signaling system, we may be able to show that ethical thoughts and behavior are of fundamental importance to the system itself.
Human signaling systems signal internally, within themselves, and externally, toward other people. Our most important signaling system is the one we share with that person who is most important to us, our mate or best friend. Let’s confine our discussion to this sort of primary signaling system.
If I lie to my partner or cheat her, I may gain something outside of our shared signaling system, but that signaling system will suffer. And when that shared system suffers, my own internal signaling system will also suffer because it will contain errors. It will no longer be in its optimal state. Similarly, if she lies to me or cheats me, our mutual signaling system will become less than optimal as will both of our individual, or internal, signaling systems.
My own signaling system cannot grow or become optimal without my partner treating me with the best ethical behavior she can muster. And the same is true for her with respect to me. And we both know this.
We would be good to each other anyway, but it is helpful to see that our being good to each other has a very practical foundation—it assures us optimal performance of our mutual and internal signaling systems.
FIML practice is designed to provide partners with a clear and reasonably objective means to communicate honestly with each other. FIML practice will gradually optimize communication between partners by making it much clearer and more honest. In doing this, it will also optimize the operations of their mutual and individual signaling systems.
To my knowledge, there is nothing like FIML in any Buddhist tradition. But if I try to read FIML into the tradition, I may be able to find something similar in the way monks traveled together in pairs for much of the year. I don’t know what instructions the Buddha may have given them or how they spoke to each other, but it may be that they did a practice with each other similar to FIML practice.
In any case, if we view human being as a signaling system, we may be able to claim that clear signaling—that is, ethical signaling—is fundamental to the optimization of that system.
Signal quality
Schizophrenia is characterized in part by difficulty in telling the difference between internal and external signals. My guess is that virtually all “normal” people are characterized by their difficulty in telling truthful signals from bullshit.
Normal interpersonal relations are conducted with signals that have low resolution. By that I mean, signal references are rarely unambiguous. In fact, they are very often not even truthful. An ambiguous signal will frequently be interpreted wrongly and lead to problems as serious as those that result from untruthful signals.
The same is true in the public sphere.
Because low signal quality in the social/interpersonal realm is so common, we typically do not identify it as a problem. Furthermore, because we don’t know what to do about it even when we do notice it, we largely ignore it. But that does not mean it isn’t a huge problem.
FIML practice can fix this problem for participating partners. In the future, brain scans may help fix it in the public sphere.
Psychopathy and brain scans
I believe that many institutions/societies are controlled by psychopaths.
A recent claim by the psychologist Oliver James, supports this belief. In his words:
This dark triad of characteristics is very likely to be present in that person in your office who causes you so much trouble. Whether you work in the corporate sector, a small business or a public sector job, the system you are in is liable to reward ruthless, selfish manipulation.
The likelihood of your daily working life being sacrificed by a person who is some mixture of psychopathic, Machiavellian and narcissistic is high. If you do not develop the skills to deal with them, they will eat you for breakfast. (Source)
Psychopaths can act as individuals or in groups. We would do well to re-purpose the word sociopath to mean simply “a group that is made up of psychopaths or that behaves toward other groups in a psychopathic manner.”
James says that the rest of us need to develop skills to deal with psychopaths. The science is not there yet, but I hope the day will come when brain scans are good enough to help us detect psychopathy and lies. Then, if used properly, there would be far less lying and cheating in government, science, academia, the corporate world, and so on. My guess is that if psychopaths and liars can be reliably identified and/or prevented from lying, society in general will become many times more efficient than it is today. That would mean much less work with much better outcomes for all, psychopaths included.
Repost: Metaphors, words associations, and paralinguistics
If we consider spoken language as a complex linear system, we will be able to use it as a pretty good standard for understanding individual psychology as well as interpersonal communication.
All words have words associated with them. Though we all share many of the same word-associations (coffee/beverage; booze/drunk; etc.), we also all have an abundance of word associations that belong only to us. I suppose this is fairly obvious, though I am not so sure it is well enough appreciated.
Drug addict tries to work high on pills first day
Morality
The physical universe is probably amoral.
The laws of the physical universe—the ones we know—do not say much about the evolution of life. And they have even less to say about the evolution of human societies and human consciousness.
Good moral behavior is essential for the scientific method to work. If many scientists lie or cheat, we won’t get good science.
On the interpersonal level, FIML practice both requires and encourages moral behavior. At first, partners may only notice that they are required to tell the truth, but as they continue practicing, they will come to want to tell the truth.
This happens for very concrete, even objective, reasons. I know that if I don’t tell my partner the truth, we will both lose. And if I do tell her the truth, we will both gain.
Morality in FIML practice—i.e. telling the truth—is not difficult because the units of a FIML discussion are typically very small, usually entailing just a few seconds of conversation/communication. The payoff for telling the truth in FIML practice, however, is huge. Partners will notice profound and beneficial changes in all aspects of their psychologies. This happens because partners’ senses of who they are will shift from a core with a secretive ego to a core with an interactive truth-telling process. Clean, clear language and a clear conscience transform human being.
FIML may prove that morality is fundamental to human consciousness. This statement is not based on feeling or wishful thinking because you have to behave morally to do FIML at all. For individual psychology, the payoff from FIML can be greater than from science in many important areas.
FIML notes
- FIML may look like low-hanging fruit, but it isn’t because the basic technique goes against normal linguistic behavior and can cause anger in someone who is not trained or has not entered a prior agreement to do it.
- FIML is based on simple principles:
- the basic communication group is two people
- the basic unit of communication is the “psychological morpheme,” which arises/occurs at a discreet moment in a conversation
- psychological morpheme are identified and discussed as soon after they arise as possible (within seconds in most cases)
- this is to avoid having them index large libraries of habitual thought and feeling
- partners must care about each other
- partners must agree to be honest about their listening and speaking
- this kind of honesty is quite simple; you don’t need to tell all but only what has bearing on what you said or heard
- if partners are honest with each other and sufficiently skilled to catch psychological morphemes very soon after they arise, they will come to see how fundamental to their their view of themselves and each other are the many mistaken interpretations they make concerning each other
- With practice, FIML insights can and will replace static assumptions about personality, ego, internal autobiography, and psychology.
- This happens because FIML practice will show both partners how mistaken interpretations occur and what their effects are.
- FIML encourages and greatly supports honesty or ethical behavior between partners.
- FIML ethics can be stated objectively.
- As partners practice more FIML, they will come to understand/experience how important basic FIML ethics are for both of them.
- FIML will not work if one or both partners is lying. A little bit of fudging will work for a while, but partners will soon realize that there is no need to fudge. Much greater gains for both of them will be made if they always do their best to tell the truth.
- Good ethical behavior is not hard in FIML practice because the “psychological morphemes” that are its basic subject matter are so small it does not feel threatening to talk about them honestly. Indeed, it is a great relief to talk about them and discover that they are/were mistakes, which is usually the case.
- FIML can be understood as a game between two people who have chosen to be honest with each other.
- As such, this game has rules that help partners deal with communicative ambiguity and misinterpretation as it occurs and in its smallest units.
- Playing the FIML game will clear up communication mistakes between partners.
- It will also clear up many emotional problems between partners, and the world(s) they live in.
Some basic points about speaking and listening
- Virtually all speech is ambiguous or subject to misinterpretation. This is especially true for interpersonal speech.
- Virtually all listening is hazy, leading to frequent misinterpretation. This is especially true for interpersonal listening.
Therefore, a major part of interpersonal conversation should involve clearing up misinterpretations that stem from speaking and/or listening mistakes.
It could be argued that clearing up such misinterpretations is a waste of time; that it is inefficient. In some practical situations, this is true. But in many/most situations it is a very efficient use of interpersonal time. If you don’t care about the person you are speaking with, there is not much point in clearing up misinterpretations. But if you do care about them and they about you, it is a wonderful use of time. What could be more interesting than discussing how you listen and speak to each other?
I believe that what we now call “personality” should not be defined in terms of largely permanent traits (the Big Five) but rather in terms of how we deal with speaking and listening mistakes in our interpersonal relationships. I say this because when you deal with these mistakes, your sense of who you are will change. Your behaviors and feelings will change because you will discover that much of what you thought you were was based on misunderstanding what you were hearing and how you were being heard.
From my practice of FIML, I have become deeply aware of how common speaking and listening mistakes are between people. Five or six of them in an hour of conversation is not uncommon. Since most of us have no idea how to identify and correct these mistakes, we use silence, avoidance, fake agreeableness, conventional behaviors, and so on to deal with them. But that way lies disaster because mistakes very often compound and cause even more problems. Not fixing them is like not fixing termites in your foundation.
Why is all of this not clear to everyone in the world? I do wonder. What could be more obvious than the irrefutable fact that we often speak imprecisely and listen carelessly and that even when we are precise and careful we still make many mistakes in understanding each other? How can it be that no one has figured out what to do about that (besides the dodgy stuff mentioned above)?
Sometimes I wonder why the ancient Greeks didn’t figure this out. They talked a lot but no one ever figured out how to talk well? I think the reason they didn’t is their society was hierarchical and so the hierarchical paradigm ruled even the speech of philosophers. In a hierarchy, the top dog is usually treated as if they are always right, though of course they are often wrong.
If you want to correct the inevitable misunderstandings that have occurred and will continue to occur between you and your SO or closest friend, do FIML. There is no other way to correct them. You have to use a technique that catches the mistakes as soon as they happen and corrects them quickly. If you can’t figure out how to do FIML from this site, send me an email and I will do what I can to help. FIML can be difficult to learn, but only because virtually all of our speaking and listening habits point away from it. Once you understand the deep significance of interpersonal communication mistakes and how to fix them, you will find FIML practice rewarding, efficient, and most interesting.
Repost: FIML and Bernard Lonergan’s GEM
One aspect of FIML that continues to delight me, even after years of practice, is how so little can give us so much. In a nutshell “all” FIML does is stabilize and clarify our communication with one other person.
FIML does this by removing error and resolving ambiguities between two people. FIML cannot do this perfectly, but it does it well-enough that partners will experience a level of mental and emotional clarity that had not been available to them before.
American Buddhist Net 