TPOVs @F-L-O-W: LeaderLevel _Beta_
In this short 8 minute audio/video by Terrance McKenna, you’ll
see a very interesting, multi-dimensional topic about "Culture
Is Your Operating System."
youtube.com/watch?v=9c8an2XZ3MU
I found this interesting, albeit in and out @BS…
example is underlying assumption throughout which is centered
in:
"…anybody can do this…so you can too…" –> is a typical
extension @BS
I do find this interesting though as I have never experimented
with "chemicals" per se…and thus can’t say whether or not it
does what they say (cleans up the ram…)…ask your
experienced friends or use with caution<–I’m not recommending
fyi. but, what is interesting to me, was evaluating this using
"leaderlevel" technology…
leaderlevel is still beta, but what I’m attempting to do is to
look for ways in which we can see through the "bits" (lot of
good ones here going in a direction of valuing, fyi)…into
the leader’s level…of reasoning based on hierarchical
complexity (a standard system).
I will have this transcribed, as I want to use it later for an
example which shows us clues about how to look at vary
"complex" seeming material and to derive signal in the noise
through reasoning topography…
in looking at this as an example, it’s important to make an
assumption about the mental models being used in the
reasoning…I’m not sure any of the current adult assessment
models do this in this manner, so let me try to describe this
idea, although I know Lectical is mapping reasoning…
but the implicit models under our reasoning are much more
"primal" in helping us understand whether or not the reasoning
has reached a particular level, IMHO (and what I am
researching)… (this is important IMHO to allow us to observe
and objectify reasoning errors, such that reasoning about
reality moves us in the direction of the actual reality,
rather than one conjured by valuing per se) <– not bad, just
has consequences.
…because of complexity (mostly horizontal and oblique
(horizontal) bits and (oblique) bytes)…
meaning is being made in ways that are confusing (and
entraining) when someone connects to our values (you can tell
this happens when you get a feeling of…"yeah…that’s what I
mean, or "right-on" or affect that is automatically
transferred in resonance with…)…
sense being made from that meaning is often full of "errors"
in our reasoning because of agreement, resonance and
attunement…
yet, there is a level of reasoning which is clearly guiding
the meaning formation, as well as the meaning
dissemination…and what I am after is to be able to
understand these "reasoning levels" and to differentiate them
from the ValuDynamics scaffolding them…
in the past, I feel that systems have integrated values and
reasoning to our detriment, and while it works in many cases
because the emergence of irrational valuing and emotional
attunement or resonance is a very powerful combination…the
reasoning underlying it is more important to understand, than
to merely take for granted…
as we approach mind-numbing levels of complexity and we fish
bowl around values (not a bad thing, but can have negative
consequences)…a reasoning level, or what I am going to call
a leaderlevel can be an important distinction to make…
in this particular example, the person makes a number of
reasoning errors…one I pointed out above (everybody is
equal), even though he speaks to "differences"–> his modeling
of that concept lacks congruent reasoning, which if you are
listening, you can here that he is quite comfortable with
people being different, and uses it in a sentence well…yet
the underlying mental model is…that everyone will respond
the same to the "shamanic tech experience" he relates as
"cleaning some space on your ram" to shift out of the cultural
operating system…
in a sense-making formula, it’s important to map the various
tracks he’s traveling so you can see that his reasoning level
is at a particular level, and that there will be parts of the
problem space, which he doesn’t describe…
so why is this important (and critical)…
if you remember the work that Chris Argyris did in FLAWED
ADVICE and the Management Trap (2000?)…he noted that much of
our advice was not actionable because it failed to meet
"actionable criteria" he specified. [Link to TPOV on
Actionable Advice here]…
If we are making reasoning errors, then the advice we are
offering either directly or indirectly, may produce very
uneven consequences. In order to be more EES with our advice,
reasoning, leadership, or problem solving systems, it will be
important to recognize these reasoning errors.
What’s more–something extremely important in the face of
accelerating diversity created by the transduction of fossil
fuel energy into KSEs (energy and information)…will be to
understand at what level the reasoning is occurring.
This is important because each reasoning level has a LOT of
value, and the goal should not be to necessarily try to rank
one over the other, or point out the limits, but to value the
reasoning at the level it’s created for the value created by
that level. In doing so, we can then change the way we
attribute the meaning, and move off of the good/bad judgment
so common, but noticing how fit it is for the likely match
with the current reality–while valuing the reasoning.
I believe this is an important moral step…
(and I think it is important NOT to call these cognitive
levels, although it’s technically correct–it carries too much
confusion), almost everyone I think, will not be spun about by
"reasoning level" as it’s already defined well in our minds,
where cognition and cognitive still hold great range of
meaning.
Definition of REASONING [www.m-w.com]
1: the use of reason; especially : the drawing of
inferences or conclusions through the use of reason
2: an instance of the use of reason : argument
Examples of REASONING
Could you explain your reasoning?
They told everyone the reasoning behind the decision.
a conclusion based on fallacious reasoning
Humans possess the power of reasoning.
First Known Use of REASONING
14th century
Synonyms: intellection, ratiocination, reason, logic,
sense
I think the definition as an example brings home the point
about not creating confusion or immune responses at the face
anyway. While I won’t cover the example, or the resulting map
of the 8 minutes here in this TPOV, it’s important I think to
introduce the conceptual context as a teachable point of view
for leaderlevel even though its in beta form, to give you the
opportunity to begin to consume the idea.
Helpful Hint: The level at which people reason in inherently
valuable and laden with information about their view of
reality, their KSEs, and their capability with reason. It’s
also important to note that "any" level of reason carries with
it positive and negative consequences, even though they may be
delayed or obscure in the moment.
To improve sense-making systems, we need to begin to
understand more about how we reason, and how others reason and
come to be, do, have, become and contribute. Solving more
complex problems will require a variety of perspectives, often
available in particular levels of reasoning and may not always
be evident in others. Learning to value the diversity in
reasoning requires a new moral equivalence that has benefits
to the whole, while preserving the parts, identifying the
puzzle pieces and learning how each element can contribute to
more robust solutions, often creating antifragile constructs.
Action Step: Learn how to distinguish your level of reasoning
and the errors that will emerge as a result.
Comments:
For more info:
www.f-l-o-w.com/leaderlevels [1]
|
