This point was interesting: Individual dynamics are more open to change or conversation compared to social consensus, but it's easier to change the consensus of a group if you update beliefs one at a time. I had noticed this, but never articulated it in this way.
It reminded me of how Lincoln and co worked on each member to get the 13th amendment passed, turning over people who had publicly voiced opposition to it. You were reading Lyndon Johnson's biography earlier. Did LBJ have an intuition for this sort of interaction?
Yes, this is what LBJ does. In a very manipulative way, I should add. But a great example is early, when he’s at college, and he’s got very low standing with a group that he wants to control, so he never speaks during their meeting, but gradually, people realize that all decisions that get made are what he wanted—because he’s talked to everyone individually before the meetings. So that’s def related to what we’re talking here. But it can be done in more wholesome ways
That conflict is fascinating, that LBJ was very effective at what he did and executed some of the most important changes like civil rights, etc. but wasn't a very transparent or egalitarian leader. On the other hand, Ulysses Grant was supposed to be a good-hearted person who wanted to keep the peace, but he was inept and helmed one of the most corrupt administrations of all time.
Makes me wonder if driving consensus and running an efficient operation inevitably needs an iron hand and a manipulative approach (might not be a great strategy for personal fulfilment). Counter-examples I can think of are Lincoln, Washington, but I don't really know their stories deeply. Your anecdotes about LBJ are pushing me to read the biography ASAP.
In "The Founders", Jimmy Soni touches upon something similar – productivity at Paypal was highest when there was open conflict and bad blood driven by an authoritarian vision, and when a more good-natured CEO started to run more meetings, productivity stalled. Finally the CEO was ousted in LBJ fashion, by individually turning people against him behind his back.
It’s really hard to go against a group once you start noticing things you don’t like about how it works. I have a friend who’s the game master of an RPG group. He wanted to share that hobby with his girlfriend, and at first his friends said they didn’t mind and that she was welcome to join. But when it actually came time for her to play, they admitted they felt uncomfortable and said they’d rather keep the games just between them.
This happened several times, which really frustrated my friend and made his girlfriend feel pretty bad about the whole situation. Since he’s the game master, he eventually decided he would bring his girlfriend to some of the campaigns anyway, even though the others weren’t happy about it.
I just find the whole situation sad, and I hope they can eventually figure out a way that works for everyone.
The emotional work you mention is often expected to be made by the person looking for change, either in relation to individuals or in groups. At least that’s my experience. You’re asked to process your own discomfort while also absorbing everyone else’s. This gives you agency but can also make the change harder than staying put?
And on groups - Maybe one could describe the shift that is necessary to happen in relation to the break-out individual is as a paradigm shift? The individual can be a symptom of a larger number of anomalies that have accumulated and be the katalyst for a crisis/revolution/new era, or can be the first anomaly and thus be quieted by the current structure.
This is not an answer, but your comment made me think of the work of Jakko Seikkula. His team do sort of dialogical group therapy with schizofrenics and people have psychosis and so on--during the acute phase, they gather friends and family and works through the situation communally. The idea being something like that the psychosis being a reaction to something being wrong in the social web (not discounting that the person might have a genetic predisposition etc, but that something in their situation usually provoked it, so they are like the canary in the coal mind almost). And so while things are in chaos, you bring everyone together, with some therapists, and open the pipes so people can articulate and share the suppressed stuff that lies beneath it all. And usually there is a lot of things that people haven't been saying to each other.
I'm not sure how well this works (they well), but it resonates with personal experiences, in that it is often useful when you get these ruptures so that the unspoken can be spoken, and that tends, if done with skill, to unblock also the people around the one who is in crisis, or talking up.
Yes Seikkula’s work maps onto that kind of thinking cleanly. I did some reading after your note. The results are striking, although as I understand it they have not been replicated elsewhere.
The concept ”polyphony of voices” is particularly interesting I think. The idea that the psyche is a system of voices that need to maintain a functional dialogue (a bit like IFS I suppose). But what may be even more interesting is the possible implication that many of these internal voices may be shared across the relational system, so that if one person ”gives voice” to something repressed there is often instant recognition in others in the group, because they themselves carry a version of thesame thing.
This also reflects your jamming analogy. If you’re jamming well you’re carrying the voices of others into the new melody so to speak.
This point was interesting: Individual dynamics are more open to change or conversation compared to social consensus, but it's easier to change the consensus of a group if you update beliefs one at a time. I had noticed this, but never articulated it in this way.
It reminded me of how Lincoln and co worked on each member to get the 13th amendment passed, turning over people who had publicly voiced opposition to it. You were reading Lyndon Johnson's biography earlier. Did LBJ have an intuition for this sort of interaction?
Yes, this is what LBJ does. In a very manipulative way, I should add. But a great example is early, when he’s at college, and he’s got very low standing with a group that he wants to control, so he never speaks during their meeting, but gradually, people realize that all decisions that get made are what he wanted—because he’s talked to everyone individually before the meetings. So that’s def related to what we’re talking here. But it can be done in more wholesome ways
That conflict is fascinating, that LBJ was very effective at what he did and executed some of the most important changes like civil rights, etc. but wasn't a very transparent or egalitarian leader. On the other hand, Ulysses Grant was supposed to be a good-hearted person who wanted to keep the peace, but he was inept and helmed one of the most corrupt administrations of all time.
Makes me wonder if driving consensus and running an efficient operation inevitably needs an iron hand and a manipulative approach (might not be a great strategy for personal fulfilment). Counter-examples I can think of are Lincoln, Washington, but I don't really know their stories deeply. Your anecdotes about LBJ are pushing me to read the biography ASAP.
In "The Founders", Jimmy Soni touches upon something similar – productivity at Paypal was highest when there was open conflict and bad blood driven by an authoritarian vision, and when a more good-natured CEO started to run more meetings, productivity stalled. Finally the CEO was ousted in LBJ fashion, by individually turning people against him behind his back.
It’s really hard to go against a group once you start noticing things you don’t like about how it works. I have a friend who’s the game master of an RPG group. He wanted to share that hobby with his girlfriend, and at first his friends said they didn’t mind and that she was welcome to join. But when it actually came time for her to play, they admitted they felt uncomfortable and said they’d rather keep the games just between them.
This happened several times, which really frustrated my friend and made his girlfriend feel pretty bad about the whole situation. Since he’s the game master, he eventually decided he would bring his girlfriend to some of the campaigns anyway, even though the others weren’t happy about it.
I just find the whole situation sad, and I hope they can eventually figure out a way that works for everyone.
I think everyone can recognise themselves in some way in Beth. Thank you again for writing articles that make me feel.
The emotional work you mention is often expected to be made by the person looking for change, either in relation to individuals or in groups. At least that’s my experience. You’re asked to process your own discomfort while also absorbing everyone else’s. This gives you agency but can also make the change harder than staying put?
And on groups - Maybe one could describe the shift that is necessary to happen in relation to the break-out individual is as a paradigm shift? The individual can be a symptom of a larger number of anomalies that have accumulated and be the katalyst for a crisis/revolution/new era, or can be the first anomaly and thus be quieted by the current structure.
Thanks again for a great read!
This is not an answer, but your comment made me think of the work of Jakko Seikkula. His team do sort of dialogical group therapy with schizofrenics and people have psychosis and so on--during the acute phase, they gather friends and family and works through the situation communally. The idea being something like that the psychosis being a reaction to something being wrong in the social web (not discounting that the person might have a genetic predisposition etc, but that something in their situation usually provoked it, so they are like the canary in the coal mind almost). And so while things are in chaos, you bring everyone together, with some therapists, and open the pipes so people can articulate and share the suppressed stuff that lies beneath it all. And usually there is a lot of things that people haven't been saying to each other.
I'm not sure how well this works (they well), but it resonates with personal experiences, in that it is often useful when you get these ruptures so that the unspoken can be spoken, and that tends, if done with skill, to unblock also the people around the one who is in crisis, or talking up.
Yes Seikkula’s work maps onto that kind of thinking cleanly. I did some reading after your note. The results are striking, although as I understand it they have not been replicated elsewhere.
The concept ”polyphony of voices” is particularly interesting I think. The idea that the psyche is a system of voices that need to maintain a functional dialogue (a bit like IFS I suppose). But what may be even more interesting is the possible implication that many of these internal voices may be shared across the relational system, so that if one person ”gives voice” to something repressed there is often instant recognition in others in the group, because they themselves carry a version of thesame thing.
This also reflects your jamming analogy. If you’re jamming well you’re carrying the voices of others into the new melody so to speak.
Thank you. This struck a chord with me. Life (and relationships) is so complex.