Your title goes here @F-L-O-W


the book @F-L-O-W redirect member login


Self Determination Theory @F-L-O-W


A discussion on Self Determination from the Inner Circle



The discussion below is from our Inner Circle membership which is open to new members.  On Monday, May 5th, Mike is holding an Open call to discuss "Self-Determination" further.

For the call-in details or to receive the replay, complete the registration at the bottom of this page.

Note: Please  ignore any spelling errors as this is the unedited version notes.

**************************

John

Mike,
It would seem that @F-L-O-W [Flawless Living Operating Worldview] would not be compatible with SDT.  However, in the definition below part of the definition reads…supporting our natural intrinsic tendencies…  How does that impact it’s compatibility with @F-L-O-W?

—-

John

http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org

—-

Mike

I wonder why you conclude that?

Please do explain.

—-

John

My understanding is that @F-L-O-W has to do with individual differences and that 1-5% is related to our natural intrinsic tendencies.

—-

Mike

Anyone else have an understanding like this or any other to share?

—-

Mark

The mental model behind SDT that I pick up from a quick glance is that there is a self (you) that is in the driver seat and can steer your "intrinsic tendencies" according to some standard you set (behave in effective and healthy ways).

My understanding of @F-L-O-W is that there is no SELF that is above yourself controlling your being independently from your being (having, doing and becoming). It’s all part of the elephant. Your will just is as it is, a force that defines you (not vice-versa). The only thing you can do is sit, watch and accept the elephant take its path to get what it needs.

If that path fits a specific success trajectory that is socially accepted as such then you are happy and successful (only 1 to 5% are thus wired and naturally scaffolded).

And here is the point I find difficult to grog with @F-L-O-W and at times find to be a contradiction within itself: There is a self, an observing self, that is somehow not part of the elephant but sitting on it with the faculty to "design" away the divide between the needs and the requirements. Something like that.. I need help on this one.

There is something fatalistic about @F-L-O-W yet there is a dose of agency.
Mark

—-

Brian

I LOVE how you have framed your understanding and then question Mark, but don’t yet have the smarts or the courage to try and respond to it…J. Maybe later.

—-

Mike

[mypal, remind me May 3, 2014 ]

Yes in your interpretation, it seems fatalistic but that has more to do with your interpretation than my design @F-L-O-W.

This is to complex to write on a PDA so id love to talk this through, then possibly transcribe it and then write it as this has a lot of nips and turns because you are interpreting thin mono dimensionally (it’s ok) but you have mashed together your interpretation using that dimensional approach and I need to spend time unwinding the mashup for you,

I don’t like the term fatalistic tic or deterministic, those terms are ONLY used in the literature to critique unfavorable views of epigenetic guidance.

I used to use a term called genetically-guided but again people lump that into determinism and epigenetic is more technically correct if less widely agreed upon.

As to the self piece, I never remember addressed self directly so I was interested in your own interpretation as I try to stay away from ego, self (other than self-knowledge) and the rider on the elephant came from Airily I think, so that was all news to me, but nonetheless an interesting mashup…

And something I want to address.

Gary can we setup a call for week of may 6 at 8:30 pm et to discuss this interpretation and answer John’s final question below?

—-

Alicia

Where rider on the elephant comes from – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Happiness_Hypothesis

—-

John

For me the statement below seems too passive and deterministic.  Perhaps the statement could be unpacked in a way that would make me think differently.

The only thing you can do is sit, watch and accept the elephant take its path to get what it needs.


—-

Mike

Both/and…

There is the elephant, the rider, and the watcher, observer, witness, your pick.

It’s difficult, if not impossible for most people to see the duality of life, that there really is an "explainer" working to "rationalize" the ride, as if choice were real;)

—-

Mark

I started off with the framing, wanted to keep it short, but then found it difficult to go on, found myself stuck – that’s where reaching out comes in – you pass on the ball.

—-

Mark

Excellent idea! I find

—-

Mark

I find I need to get more clarity on this to make @F-L-O-W
 actionable for me. This to me is critical point to understand what you call epigenetic learning. Reaching out is the point I find most helpful. But then using advice and feed-back well to know where to say the genuine yes and no is not easy (esp. when you like getting approval).

I an looking foreword to the recording. Thanks!

—-

Mike

If you understand u need approval and that saying yes and no is governed by that, then you would design a system where when you said yes, it was leveraged and saying no was set by design as default realizing that too many yeses actually made it worse

I wrote in the book about saying yes and no for the right reasons… since high acceptance almost always says yes too much, the design has to be setup to yield a lot of noes in order to leverage the yes moments…

Also saying yes at the right times is governed easily by the elephant, the "position" of the rider and the observer under feedback.

Reaching out produces resilience, a yes/no design produces anti-fragility.

Self knowledge helps set the equilibriums around who to disappoint and why and under "what" conditions.

Coaching can help with the design.

Or so I think.

High acceptance needs to reach a certain level of approval density and frequency and therefore as you say, the signal:noise ratio is key…

That is governed through self-knowledge, IMHO

You don’t need respect, approval or acceptance from everyone, just a certain density and frequency is required to reach a particular, but necessary set point or equilibrium.

That’s my take, you can substitute any motive construct in the above logic, IMHO.

My independence requires a lot of yes/no design, and in order to reach higher quality density and frequency the design needs to accommodate independent at many levels including some density and frequency of interdependence which I have to both reach out for and design in…

And so on

The key for me @F-L-O-W…

Is to reach the appropriate density and frequency for each set point, and to do that without thinking, or willpower unless willpower is a motive construct, then will away…

I once said, our design @F-L-O-W…

Should be about waking up into happiness and even success…

Bring, doing, having, becoming and contributing should be a naturally unconscious, irrationally, epigenetic guidance system that is the conscious key honed to cut through BS, hehe.

***********************

Join our Self-Determination Call

Complete the form below to receive call-in details and/or receive the replay link.

     *
     

    © Generati

    More Info @F-L-O-W

    Disclaimer |  Terms Of Service |  Earnings Disclaimer |  Privacy Notice |  Contact Support |  Buy the Book