--- All conversation is about becoming the mirror through which a person can see themselves. It's a tool for reducing uncertainty, one in both your relationship, and [[The Nature of Ego & Identity]]. This dialogue falls into two categories, either asking "who are you" or "What are we doing." Each of these questions probe at a different layer of a persons being. **The Authentic Layer** - Identity/Position ("Who are you") - Internal ego alignment - Authentic perspective vs mimetic adoption - True beliefs vs socially constructed ones - "Seeing with kind eyes of faith" - The perception of subjective realities - Gibson's affordances theory - Deep questioning techniques **The Strategic Layer** - Direction/Purpose/Velocity ("What are we doing") - Where we're oriented in possibility space - What truth we're moving toward - Shared vs individual trajectories - The leverage frameworks - Value equation - Network mapping - Understanding others' fears/aspirations The most powerful connections aren't about manipulation but about developing genuine understanding of others' subjective realities and affordances. Be a clear and faithful mirror - not manipulating the reflection but helping others see themselves more accurately. It's about reducing uncertainty through authentic reflection rather than strategic distortion. This is perhaps why "most people don't know who they are" - because they've primarily encountered distorting mirrors that reflect social expectations rather than authentic being. The most masterful conversationalists, probe at a persons *Vectors of Psyche* (see [[The Nature of Ego & Identity]]), using ambiguous language as to gauge a persons depth and comfort. It's a strategic ambiguity. They're essentially offering a soft mirror that allows others to see themselves without feeling exposed or judged. However, when you employ strategic ambiguity to probe vectors, there's an inherent risk of creating a power dynamic where you appear to be "analyzing" or "studying" the other person, which can trigger defensive reactions. This is why seeing with "faith" is so important - humility is truth. You must not position yourself as an observer of their vectors, rather as a son of god, a human with shared experiences, a man who can look up at the stars. ![[Friedemann Schulz von Thun’s Four-Sides Model.png]] *Note: Diagram depicts Friedemann Schulz von Thun’s [Four-Sides Model.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-sides_model) The sender communicates a message composed of four facets: factual information (data or facts), self-revelation (what they disclose about themselves), relationship (how they view their connection with the receiver), and appeal (what they want the receiver to do or feel). The receiver, in turn, interprets the message through these same four dimensions.* ## The Commons Ground is quite hard to find if you're not looking down. To find, a mutual understanding, you both have to agree to look for it. However, when you encounter a person, it's rare for both parties to offer exchanges of good faith from the start. In our age, people are busy, they have their own circles of understanding, and it takes both time and effort, that most are simply unwilling to front. > "To share the depths of your being, is to open yourself to a world of indifference." > - *paraphrased Nietzsche* This is why most conversation is generic, is business minded, is judgmental, is surface level, etc. So, how do you both truly reach the commons? The usual advice, is to avoid topics of division, to only focus on that which you can agree on. The other advice, is to "lather compliments" or to downplay yourself. However, this advice is simply poor. It leads to those very monotonous business minded conversations we are attempting to surpass. Do you have to agree to appreciate? Do you have to see the same thing to see the same thing? The "commons" isn't found in agreement at all, it's the foundation through which you explore and converse each other's perspectives. You're establishing the terms of understanding, reducing unpredictability. - "How is this person going to approach our disagreements?" (**Trust in Process**) - "Does this person really care about what I have to say?" (**Quality of Attention**) - "Can this person even understand what I want to say?" (**Depth of Understanding**) - "What types of experiences has this person gone through that makes me confident in our relationship?" (**Trust and Relational Foundation**) - *This last question is asking, how confident the person is in how they will respond similarly, or predictably, in different scenarios.* The hardest people to have conversations with are those who only see hate. They're so stuck in their ways they cannot understand why things are the way they are, including you. They can be fine people, but they will not understand you, and are prone to making assumptions. However, similarly, those who only see love cannot understand the depths of someone's character. Both can be equally as isolating. The point is not to make you become one way or another, but to be aware of how you answer each of these implicit questions. Through topic, environment, body language, speech, behavior, appearance and tonality. This is why phrasing with "strategic ambiguity" balanced with faith is crucial, seeing only hate or only love is limiting - both are forms of distortion that reduce the essence of a soul's reflection. In this sense, it's comfortable to consider "calibrating" how you reflect a persons character, however, even the act of calibration is a form of manipulation. The truth is that "true" conversations are uncomfortable, they require work, and so we avoid them. However, this document aims to guide an understanding which can surpass this. How can we be true, authentic, appreciative, while not lying and manipulating the other persons reaction? The key lies in what we consider truth and what the other person can afford. If a person begins by communicating their discomfort in their own perspective, even if subliminal, how do we continue forwards? Every piece of information communicating is a question. It's asking "How you will orient your own perspective of the person?" Every response choice reveals your own orientation: - Taking a teaching position → "I know better" - Offering immediate solutions → "Your discomfort needs fixing" - Matching their uncertainty → "I'm performing empathy" - Sharing your own journey → "I'm human too" Each is an assumption, the awareness of which is hard to overcome. The semantics of your wording communicate either your position, or the manipulation of your position, reflecting truth, or the hollowness of your being. So, how do we continue? Establish what you are talking about. Do not make assumptions. Be true to your words. Reduce uncertainty. *Remember, each of your responses is always about answering the same questions of predictability, formulate your response accordingly.* ## The Uncommons Having established a commons, we can address the layers of conversation. The two meta layers are - The Strategic Layer - Direction/Purpose/Velocity ("What are we doing") - The Authentic Layer - Identity/Position ("Who are you") How do we have effective conversations in these meta layers, especially if the terms of our commons deviates? For example, in a business context lets say I meet a billionaire. It's obvious that having a relationship with him would be beneficial to me, however, just knowing this directs people towards manipulation. So, how do we approach conversations in asymmetric power dynamics, both emotional and strategic ones. The key is that asymmetry is not one dimensional. There can be an asymmetry of power, but you might have an asymmetry of character. Either way, it doesn't matter. Asymmetry refers to a perceived dynamic. For an emotional or power asymmetry, to begin a conversation you usually have to confront this directly, however, after that confrontation has been made, its about the communication of value. You're still answering all the same questions of uncertainty, however, because the other person perceives an advantage or disadvantage, the terms of how you engage with those questions changes. Some matter more, some less, some might change etc. The fact you're even having a conversation is an act of communication itself. It's the other person saying that, despite the perceived asymmetry, im still looking for something because I value it. Again, all the same questions of uncertainty must be answered, but the additional questions transform the weight of them depending on the asymmetry. For example, a billionaire engages you in conversation. The first question shouldn't be "why someone with so much more is talking to me?" It should be, "what are they looking for?" How can I communicate that I have that thing, or if I don't how can I be honest and or facilitate a connection. For an emotional asymmetry, the person might feel much more deeply on a specific issue, you might disagree, yet they still engage in conversation because they want something from you, they care about you. The commons of the conversation has been subtly changed, and the main question is "can you understand me?". Here, the confrontation I'm talking about is more implicit, rather than an acknowledgement. It's usually communicated in the first words or introduction of yourself. Let's take the counter example, where someone doesn't confront the power dynamic, they end up introducing themselves, and spend the time attempting to show the person their value. In doing so, they've "lost" the conversation, as they never talked about what the conversation was about in the first place. The confrontation is a direct question. It's saying, I know who you are (asymmetry) in this context, but what are we really talking about? The "confrontation" is actually about establishing the real context of the conversation immediately, rather than getting caught in the asymmetry. ---