sociometry and sociatry thoughts

[Adam Blatner]

Just about 1.4 pages of thoughts, if you feel like reading and thinking along: 

Re sociometry and its vicissitudes: 

In response to an anecdote in which a friend told me of an interaction in which a gesture may well have been misinterpreted and evoked a scowl, I thought of the range of our human interactions. I am reminded of the principle of reality testing, which in my mind means the activity of checking out impressions, perceptions, interpretations. If someone scowls at me, could it be that it was aimed at something behind me? or indicative of a gas pain and not an expression of interpersonal friction? Dare I ask that person what the scowl meant? Is this an opportunity for interpersonal clarification, apology, healing? Should I scowl back and escalate the negative stroke interchange? (I use the term "stroke" as a unit of interpersonal recognition, positive or negative tele, explicitly communicated---though it may be in the choice or meaning of words, the tone of voice, the facial expression or some other nonverbal gesture. Strokes was coined by Eric Berne in the mid-1960s---he was the psychiatrist who developed Transactional Analysis. One of his students, Claude Steiner, uses the terms "warm fuzzies" for positive strokes; and "cold pricklies" for negative strokes.)
      Anyway, there's a prevalent tendency to not question our interpretations of the body language of others, which is too bad, because mis-interpretations are frequent. 
      I imagine for every interpersonal interaction that does occur, there could be at least one or more other interactions that could be potentially more healing, supportive, or uplifting.  

In this light, with that being only one of hundreds of different types of examples, I believe that Morenian methods and variations (such as teaching and role training the identification of nonverbal communications), talking about them, acknowledging their potential for mis-communication or misinterpretation, opening up that category for discussion as a common element in mainstream culture---because it isn't now---could be one of scores of other tools that, were they applied in education at the secondary school level---one of my goals in the long run---would be truly sociatric.

>From a broader perspective, I imagine humanity as at least potentially making progress in spreading psychology, social psychology, emotional and social intelligence and the like, and that this progress would in turn establish a firmer foundation for advances in politics, economics, ethics, community-building, spirituality, and the like. 

My goals are modest---though some might even think these extreme or unrealistic: I hope that this effort to introduce the richness of Morenian methods and concepts, and other advances in the field of psychology, may---to express this in a sort of myth-poetry---add 0.03% to the establishment of a foundation---and when mixed with others' contributions, will indeed generate a slightly firmer foundation for the evolution of consciousness in the human species. I dare estimate that as a whole, humanity operates at an average level of 2.3  on a scale of chakra skillfulness (the scale ranging from basic survival skills at 1 to relationship (2) to competence and effectiveness (3), inclusiveness, peacemaking (4); spontaneity, artistic and prophetic expressiveess (5), and a blend of surrender, self-actualization, and flow (6). (Mystical union is 7---aka "the kingdom of heaven.") 
      I fantasize humanity moving from 2.3 to chakralevel 2.4 in the next century, if we bring psychology successfully in the mainstream. I dare envision that humanity, if it gets its head together may ultimately reach and average chakralevel of 4.0 in 8 centuries. This whole scheme is thus embedded in time and all in the service of "helping God  be born."  

   Here's another spectrum: Our minds and behavior can stretch others' minds, in terms of beliefs, expectations, etc. As we present our differences, ideas, and so forth, others need to stretch sometimes to accommodate to them. I imagine a spectrum of a scale of 1-100 between:
   0 no stretch. What is presented is familiar. Ho hum. Okay.
 10 slight stretch. What I believe is held with slight anxiety, so agreement is support. There are others out there who don't agree. 
       then we enter the ZPD  (Vygotsky's term, Zone of Proximal Development, referring to the realm between the familiar and mastered and the over-stretched and painfully mind-boggled. The goal is somewhere in-between.)

30,  moderate novelty,  wow, that's interesting, surprising, not uncomfortable at all, fun stretch..
50   significant novelty... wow on the edge of too much! unbelievable. slightly uncomfortable.
70  shocking, upsetting, challenging worldviews, paradigms, ridiculous, evocative of anger,
80  can't digest it. Can't understand. Blank, shut down. throw into the fire. nonsense. heresy
90+. hate it, walk out, squirm in seat, gibberish,  over my head, evokes desire for violent counter-action! 
               Or, in other words, to paraphrase a saying - quotation I read somewhere:  
        New idea: First ridiculed; then argued against. Finally accepted as obvious. 


Adam Blatner, M.D.
   website: www.blatner.com/adam/   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20091011/5c849998/attachment.html>