A place you can go to – to say sorry : Sorry Circles

We were sitting in our kitchen throwing out ridiculous party ideas, and I expressed it would be funny to form a circle and have everyone apologize for something they had done. I had forgotten the idea by the time the party got going. Then at a moment when a little bit of quiet descended, soft like a leaf, onto the party, my friend, who hadn’t forgotten, said why don’t we go around and say what we are sorry for. We formed a circle, and she started by apologizing for there not being curtains in the rooms. The next person apologized for cursing someone who had cut him off that morning. Followed by a third person apologizing for introducing a political discussion (that got slightly heated) at the party. Then my friend, feeling that we could take advantage of the energy of everyone in the circle, suggested that we all say “We forgive you” to the person after they admitted/confessed/expressed themselves. We started saying that in unison, which sounded a little bit cult-ish at first. But after we did it a couple of times, it began to feel really beautiful. We were giving real forgiveness. As we continued around the circle, it felt people were coming from a more emotional place. There’s a power to be given a space in which you can express your regrets, to be released from that place where you may have become secretive with your past, wracked with your guilt, numb from your emotions, or combative with your defensiveness. As people spoke and listened, a deeper shift began to move in the room, something powerful was unfolding. After the circle some participants called people up to express their apologies….

It struck us this is beautiful, simple and powerful technique – you can do with your friends at a party, as a workshop, and while just hanging out. A Sorry Circle is a place where people can go to, to express their regrets and apologies, and experience some healing around it. A network of Sorry Circles in a town can help in transforming the community’s emotional health.

The mathematics of Non-Violent Communication (NVC)

I was looking at functions and how they translate one thing to another, so the function f(x) translates x into y where f(x)=y, and it seemed to me there was analogy here to Nonviolent communication (NVC) where one translates a contentious sentence into a nonviolent one. And I started wondering whether there might be mathematics of NVC.

So for instance lets say we have two people Bob and Ted. Bob says ‘I feel attacked.’ The statement ‘I feel attacked’ can be translated into I am scared and I have a need for safety. So mathematically this means f(‘I feel attacked’) = ‘I am scared and I have a need for safety’

Now the reason ‘I feel attacked’ is more contentious is because Bob is implying that Ted attacked him. Ted may reply ‘I did not attack you’. We thus have two statements that do not agree each other. One statement is ‘state of Ted=attack’ . The other statement is state of ‘Ted=not attack’. These two statements do not agree with each other, and cannot exist together in the same set.

Now the NVC translation of Bob’s statement ‘I feel attacked’ – ‘I am scared and I have a need for safety’ ,can coexist with a statement Ted makes about himself.

So translated in mathematical notation
where x1,x2,a,b are statements

x1 = I feel attacked
x2 = I did not attack

a=I am scared because my need for safety is not met
b=I raised my voice because I was nervous.

f(x1) =a
f(x2) =b
where f() is the act of nvc translation

x1 and x2 cannot form a set which is consistent so you need these statements to be in different sets {x1},{x2} . The brackets {} connotes a set.

whereas you can form a set {a,b} with the statements a and be, which has more than one component.

So you can have a larger sets of statements that can coexist in NVC.

The sets of these points form topological spaces. So the set of non-NVC statements forms a smaller topological space than the set of NVC statements.

I have an intuition that somehow in understanding these topological spaces more we can understand more about how collaboration can work, and which types of collaborations are possible.

We can move around more in the NVC statement space since it forms a larger topological space. I think what this means somehow is more freedom somehow in NVC topological spaces. And it is analogical to having more freedom in our real world. By studying these spaces I think we can get a sense of what types of collaborations and ways of working together people can have, of what kind of strategies that they can have to meet everyone’s needs.

I also think this mathematical formulation may help us understand how to generalize NVC to larger populations where multiple people are making statements. Also this may have a larger possibility of generalizing to form an economic theory out of NVC. (see my article on NVC and economics https://opencollaboration.wordpress.com/…/good-communicati…/ )

New paradigms of leadership : from leader to facilitator to we-facilitator.

I have been to a number of workshops where something the facilitator/leader of the workshop did was questioned, an act which created a certain degree of uncomfortableness, not only because something is being challenged, but also because in this situation it is no longer clear who is facilitating the discussion. The workshop leader has lost a lot their authority temporarily. I have watched with intrigue as different members of the group then attempt to take up the role of facilitator, guiding how and what is to be discussed, highlighting areas of interest, and suggesting certain processes. There can occur what might be dubbed facilitator overlap, as different facilitation processes compete for airtime. Sometimes the ensuing discussion gets off the tracks, and falls apart. Other times through people listening, empathy, synergy, and proper switching of process tracks can guide the whole group into balance.

At the New Story Summit gathering last year in Findhorn, Scotland which was brought to discuss the New Story, the new paradigms coming into reality, the agenda was interrupted when the cards outlining the schedule was rearranged by to say We Don’t Know. The schedule was something that had been designed using a process called Open Space Technology which allowed many different circles/groups to form. The cards designating where events were to be held had moved from their original positions. There was a shocked silence, then the head facilitator suggested people meditate. Then people spoke up. Some were quite angry that this had occurred, one man said it was a violent. There was an urgency from some people in the room to get the conference ‘back on track’ onto a known schedule. Then someone else spoke up and said lets not jump back in so quick, lets be present to what is occurring. Charles Eisenstein ( who writes a lot about the new story in his books, and who later turned out to be one of the pranksters who had rearranged the cards) stood up and asked who it is that we turn to, who has the power in a group. The question of who has the authority hung in the air.

It is at these times the skills of improvisational co-facilitation are needed. Where people are able to listen to the multiple perspectives and energies in the room, and also able to sense into the efficacy of different facilitation strategies. It requires being able to assess on the fly the skills of other facilitators and efficacy of different process strategies. It is about intuitively knowing when better to stay quiet or when to speak. And its about being to dance in that confusion.

What is being looked for, when there is no clear leader, no clear facilitation process, is a way for the group to self-organize into functional and energetically healthy collective. What is wanted is a way to avoid having the group descend into a divisive, chaotic anarchy. What is needed, is presence, and the ability to intuitively sense, anticipate each other, to guide it back to healthier grounds. It requires a number of subtle Tao-like skills, skills that can easily be missed by people used to more ‘rigid’ organizational structures.

These are some of the skills the Facilitator Improv process seeks to train people to become better at. Facilitator Improv creates a situation where anyone in the group can facilitate the group in a process, and so helps people listen to the group energy, and also be uncomfortable with the extra creativity and unknown that comes with allowing anyone to lead the group at any one time. The basic Facilitator Improv process involves people going into silence until someone gets an intuitive hit of what to exercise to facilitate the group with. Then everyone goes back into silence until someone gets an intuitive hit of what to lead the group with. In more advance versions of Facilitator Improv exercises can be suggested at anytime, even if another exercise is in progress. People have to use their intuition and energetic listening to guide the group well through this format where ostensibly on the surface its anything goes.

In the current mainstream model of organizational development, we have a person at the top who is telling others what to do, they have the authority. In a more advanced model of organizational development, the person at the top is more of a facilitator (as was the case at the New Story Summit). A facilitator model allows more people to participate, to feel involved, to contribute their knowledge, passion, and essence. However there is still an inherent power dynamic there (which is what Charles Eisenstein was bringing up), we still look to the facilitator as the leader. And any leader will have their blind-spots. In the Occupy Movement, there were people who were frustrated with how people who were facilitators seem to have a lot of power to contour where they wanted the conversation to go. In an even more advance model of organizational development, there is a chance for everyone to become a facilitator. Processes are we-facilitated, omni-facilitated. This model requires participants to also have a higher inner self development, where they are able to be present and aware of their own emotions and thoughts, to sense into the collective energy, and to have a higher degree of empathy.

We can think of a society going from a model of leader to facilitator to we-facilitator. In the Integral theory of Ken Wilber the leader level would be correlated with blue and orange levels of the collective, the facilitator level correlates with the green and teal levels of the collective, and the co-facilitator level correlates with turquoise levels of the collective. The hope is the Facilitator Improv practice spreads it will help usher in turquoise levels of development of our culture.

More about Facilitator Improv:

How you are empowered to facilitate humanity into a new operating system

How you are empowered to facilitate humanity into a radically new operating system

Facilitation holds a key to world change.

Facilitation is about bringing people together, to listen to each other, to connect, to empathize, to work things out, to heal social trauma, to collaborate, and to dream.

Facilitation is about creating a space for people’s deeper selves to emerge, for people’s creativity to blossom, for people’s intuitions to come alive.

Being a facilitator is a subtle art, like that of being a healer or coach. A good healer or coach does very little, allowing the client to heal or activate themselves. Its about accessing the Tao.

Facilitation is a key to changing the political, economic, justice, legal, education, healthcare and entertainment systems. New political systems can be based on facilitation brings people together to hear each other, to empathize and to collaborate. Different demographics and groups at odds with each other through facilitation can learn to work together to find holistic solutions. Solutions and governance then emerge bottom up from the collective. New economic systems can be based on facilitating people to work together in commons and gift economies e.g. gift circles are about facilitating people to express their needs and gifts. New justice and legal systems can be based in facilitating people to come together, to acknowledge, understand, empathize and forgive. Justice is then restorative and not punitive, it comes in bottom-up circles and gatherings, rather than top-down government, police, and court imposed actions. New education systems will come from facilitating people to learn from each other in peer-based learning systems. New healthcare systems will come from facilitating people in community to support each other in healing, it will come from facilitating people to come together in circles, to open up to their subtle energetic energies, to heal each other. New entertainment forms will come from facilitating people to access their creativity and co-create with each other.

Facilitation will help us transition to a bottom-up, openly collaborative world, where its our interactations with other, that emerge our beautiful co-created reality. It allows order to emerge without the need for so much top-down hierarchical goverance.

What we need is a way for facilitation to go viral, to spread all around the world. What we need is process that allows i) everyone to become empowered to facilitate ii)people to co-facilitate together, iii) teach people to facilitate iv) activate people to create facilitation happenings v) allow simple facilitation processes to evolve into societies building blocks Here is an idea for how this can happen.

First, create gatherings called Facilitation Improv. In these gatherings everyone becomes a facilitator. The circle sits in silence to someone gets a ‘hit’, gets an intuition about what to facilitate the group in. It could be a body-centered, emotion-centered, mind-centered, or spirit centered activity. The group then does this activity. When its finished, the group goes into silent meditation, until someone else gets a ‘hit’ of what to facilitate the group in. Facilitator Improv is like co-piloting a group into deeper and deeper spaces. It opens up doorways. It also trains people to become facilitators. As different people lead different activities it offers the opportunity for other people in the circle to pick up tips and tricks. As people try different things different facilitation techniques may morph and evolve. These Facilitator Improv meetings can be held regularly. And then here’s the important point to make this go viral. People in the Facilitator Improv circle are encouraged to also start another Facilitator Improv circle. They are given advice, tips, and emotional support for starting a new circle from the others in the circle. So people would then often belong to more than one facilitator circles. So each Facilitator Circle is both a co-facilitation activity, and also guidance group to help people start more circles.

The vision is to have a global network of Facilitator Improv circles happening regularly, where people are sometimes flowing, sometimes not moving from circle to circle. Facilitator Improv circles can specialize, so they can focus on political issues, they can be fitness and body-centered, they can be about diversity and social justice. And they can evolve to these specializations from a more general Facilitator Improv circle. As a community has more and more Facilitator Improv circles, the diversity of areas they focus on will increase.

What is special about Facilitator Improv circles is that it is something everyone can do. You can start one of these circles yourself. Its not like you have to wait to the government or corporations or even some big movement to do some action. You organize people to get together into a Facilitator Improv circle, and start setting in motion new ways that humanity can relate. And as you guide others in your circle to start other Facilitator Improv circles, you are setting in motion large scale ripple effects into the world. Facilitator circles are profound in how they can shift paradigms and ‘normal’ ways of doing things. By helping set up these Facilitator circles can help usher in a new socio-econo-educ-health-political operating systems for humanity.

[this article was reprinted on the Peer to Peer Foundation website http://p2pfoundation.net/Facilitator_Improv ]

More about Facilitator Improv:

New paradigms of leadership: from leader to facilitator to we-facilitator

How to give a more rigorous basis for effects of compassionate communication in politics, economics and organizations

In politics, economics, and organization development theory, it has been traditionally easier to track things like votes and money flow, and because of that mathematical models have been developed of these fields that give it more ‘rigor’. Calculations can be made with these models, and predictions output-ed. This allows people to make presentations where they can spout off projections, and give themselves the idea that they have figured out what is going on.

However these models leave out something very significant, and that is the role of emotions, caring, compassionate communication, and facilitation have on politics, economics, and organizations. Conflicts can throw a wrench in any of these systems, leading them into dysfunctional behavior. And compassionate communication, and various facilitation processes can often ‘unwind’ these conflicts so that the systems function again properly.

Is there a way to model this conflict, and ‘unwindings’? Well one way is to begin by thinking of conflicts as dynamic systems which have become a trapped in a lock-in behavior, where the variables in the system have found an attractor state that is not of the highest fitness level. And to model unwindings as ways of moving the dynamical system out of the not so healthy attractor state, and into a more healthy attractor state.

The system can be thought to be trapped in a lower maximum on a fitness landscape when there is a conflict. When the emotions are unwound then the fitness landscape transforms and the higher potential maximums become possible.

As an example one dynamic system way to model this is with game theory. Lets take the battle of the sexes game where a husband and wife are trying to decide whether to go to opera or the football game. They both get a higher payoff if they decide to do the say thing. If they go to opposite events there is a low payoff. Now if they get into an argument the payoff matrix is lower because they will not so happy even if they go to the same event. However if they use some more compassionate communication process the payoff matrix will not get so low as they engage in discussions. By putting numbers to this matrix we have now the ability to get more ‘rigorous’ output from our models. And because game theory models can be used as the basis for understanding politics, economics, and organizations we can now have a more ‘rigorous’ basis for emotions, and compassionate communication in these fields.

This kind of game theory matrix can be used to model the Palestine-Israeli conflict, and various ethnic and religious conflicts around the world. It can be used to model how people in an organization work together or not. It can be used to model economic transactions where there can be mutual benefits for all sides.

In a conflict, there are needs of both sides that are not being met. And if they are both very angry, they may make moves to try and make life more difficult for the other side. So they make moves in a dynamic system to try and lower the fitness function of the other side. This creates a trap, an unhealthy lock-in attractor. In a facilitation process like Non-Violent Communication, people are able to presence their needs and emotions, and the needs become about themselves, and not the other side. When this happens, the need to make life more difficult for the other side lessens. The fitness landscape then changes. In this case both sides find it ok to make moves that help the other side get its needs met. One can program models that show how this fitness landscape changes. One can show how different facilitation methods like Theory U, Bohmian Dialogue, or NVC shift the attractor states, fitness landscapes, and game theory payoff matrixes.

In the American political system the two party system has gotten into a game where the two parties find it improves their own individual fitness to make things difficult for the other party. Compassionate communicate can shift the payoff matrix, so that both parties work to help the needs of all people get met. Society evolves to a system that will move to higher fitness level when people listen, empathize and help out people no matter what party they belong to.

The vision for  game theoretic and computer modeling of compassionate communication, and needs based worldviews can be profound. One can place into the model a system where there are different needs of each individual, and also the emotional state, and how that affects the shape of the fitness landscape. One can have multiple conflicts in this model, and show how the fitness landscape shifts as different conflicts get resolved, and show how this affects the economics, politics, and running of organizations.

Related posts:

Narratives and ontologies

How to be nice to each other on social media

Humanity is currently in the Interconnected Age. The next stage of human evolution is the Empathically Interconnected Age.

How can that happen? I’ve been pondering for a little while now how we could use social media in a way where people listen and empathize with those who have different views. Is there a way to construct such a system?

It occurred to me two weeks ago that there might be a way to use hashtags for this intention. New issues could get the letters nvc tacked onto the end of the hashtag to indicate a more empathically constructed post. NVC stands for Non-Violent Communication, which are a set of guidelines developed by Marshal Rosenberg for helping us communicate more compassionately with each other. These practices have spread around the world with millions of people practicing them. Here is what the Center for Nonviolent Communication writes “The process of NVC encourages us to focus on what we and others are observing separate from our interpretations and judgments, to connect our thoughts and feelings to underlying human needs/values (e.g. protection, support, love), and to be clear about what we would like towards meeting those needs. These skills give the ability to translate from a language of criticism, blame, and demand into a language of human needs — a language of life that consciously connects us to the universal qualities ‘alive in us’ that sustain and enrich our well being, and focuses our attention on what actions we could take to manifest these qualities.”

The addition of nvc to a hashtag would be a way of denoting more compassionate communicaton. So for instance ‪#‎fergusonnvc‬ would be a tweet about ferguson that is using nvc language. People on both sides of the issue could tweet about the unmet needs of blacks, and of police, and about the emotions that arise as a result. There is the avoidance of judgmental language. Or for instance ‪#‎abortionnvc‬ would be about pro-choice and pro-life people tweeting in a non-judgmental ways so both sides can hear each other.

There can be ‪#‎obamacarenvc‬ , ‪#‎capitalismnvc‬ , ‪#‎climatechangenvc‬ , ‪#‎GMOnvc‬ etc… Studies have shown that tweets and fb posts nowadays are somewhat of an echochamber, it tends to be people who believe the same thing you do who see your messages. This infographic shows how tweets about Ferguson tend to reach out to people with similar views, ‘red’ tweets connect with red viewers, ‘blue’ tweets connect with blue viewers. When red and blue do connect its usually in not nice ways. This hashtag construct is an attempt to bridge the divide.

Our world is faced with such complex, interlinked problems that it will require the multiple diverse demographics sharing each their unique perspective, listening to each other, synthesizing a holistic understanding, and collaboratively emerging a course of action to move us out of them. This can happen through facilitation, through guiding dialogue so that people hear and empathize with each other, rather than stigmatize and insult each other. This can happen through processes that allow people to presence their emotions in safe ways, so that large scale transformation of emotion can occur.

Hashtags are one way to do this. Hashtags are an emergent phenomena, that is grassroots, not imposed from above. They serve as ways of categorizing and as a way for people to find out about different topics to connect. This emergent quality can be used to foster the empathic emergence of human communication across diverse demographics.

Integral economics

Q. What is meant by integral economics?

A. Integral theory is a theory initiated by Ken Wilber, which looks at how the many maps of the human experience integrate into one theory. Integral economics is a way of approaching economics that looks at it through the AQAL , All Quadrants All Levels lens. Meaning there are developmental stages or levels that a society can move through. At each level the society has a way of doing economics, of redistributing resources to where it is needed. And meaning that we look at all four quadrants of economics – the interior individual, the interior collective, the exterior individual, and the exterior collective.

Q. What type of economic systems are there?

A. Some of the more well-known ones are capitalism, communism, and gift economies. There are many variations and hybrids of these basic systems.

Q. What is a stage?

A. Wilber originally looked at stages in terms of individual development. And noted that an individual can be at various levels of development. The place where they are most often at, their center of gravity so to speak, is the stage they are at. In terms of social systems, they too are theorized to exist at various stages.

Q. Is there a connection between individual stages and social stages?

A. In Spiral Dynamics which was a theory invented by Don Beck, it is postulated that when the individuals in a society reach a certain stage of consciousness there is a corresponding social system stage that arises. So there is a correspondence. In Ken Wilber’s integral theory, different lines of development in an individual do not all have to be at the same level so e.g. an individual can be at different moral, emotional, cognitive levels. In the four quadrant model the suggestion is that there is correspondence between the individual and collective.

Q. Is there a relationship between stages and complex systems theory?

A. In complex system there are states of equilibrium, where the system will return to when perturbed. A stage might be described as those places of equilibrium in a complex social system.

Q. How does this apply to economics?

A. Certain economic systems may be unstable at certain stages of development. If you place a collective of people and gave them a set of economic rules they had to follow and they were not able to follow them, then that system is a nonequilibrium state for that collective. If they were able to live with those rules then that is an equilibrium state for the system.