Takeaways

Some interesting socialization insights from the past few days

• The style of inquiry that my cousin's wife engages in triggers a reaction in me that may look like mansplaining, but I think it comes out only after a certain triggering level was reached and because there is a similar modeling approach to understanding, but our path to understanding is a bit different perhaps due to academic differences. She's a Ph.D and leans more on references to references she deems as authorative in some way, whereas I rely on lived experience and heuristics that I'm continually testing. Yesterday she was talking about her AI hackerthons and started to talk about how she didn't think AI would be good at certain image tasks. After repeating this a couple of times I couldn't continue to hear it without challenging her line of reasoning that the AI should "know better, but it can't because of the sheer variety of visual variations", which seemed to indicate to me through her choice of words that she she had strayed beyond a firm foundation and into less grounded speculative thinking based on a misconception, without indicating or being aware she was doing it. This might have been the trigger for me. I have been thinking about how to manage this trigger in the future, and what other mannerisms she has that are pretty open but nevertheless are assertive that she is right or was going to do the right thing. The kind of person that you have to let have their own way, and compensate for due to their more impulsive and less careful approach to many things. That is probably the trigger also, as someone who is more anxious about doing things carefully or not at all, heavily caveating. Also annoying to people, I know. People who don't actively negotiate understanding and equate their data/knowledge with their identity as a whole (which seems to be a lot of people) are kind of a trigger overall, and this neurodivergent cat doesn't play well with that. I think I try to moderate it by being Sri-kin Curious and affirming, but it stops short when I perceive what could be a logical fallacy., It's been very interesting to observe how my cousins and their family interact with people who are related but not part of their daily interaction. My cousin Grace, for example, wrote The Translator's Daughter as an autobigraphy of her memory of Taiwan, and I had found the book to be open and vulnerable. In person, Grace seemed the same as I remember: careful in her speaking, always quite modulated in her response. Long conditioned, perhaps? A place of safety? I was hoping for a closer discussion but it's easily been 20 years since we last talked at all.,
• The coffee gathering at Peet's with my cousin's father-in-law Keith is interesting because it's described simply as the group of people there who are there at the same time, and it's kind of like a 24-hour coffee "cocktail party". People there just recognize each other and I think Keith just asks questions of people in his totally non-aggressive and open way, while copiously sharing his opinions. Always open to learning about people. It was interesting to me, though, how much the atmosphere kind of shifts depending on who is or is not there. While I knew was likely a common universal experience with social groups, it was good to see it in action. The negotiated safety shifted depending on the priorities and similarities expressed within this zone of relative safety and gentlemanly social signaling of different levels of opinion and judgment. Finding the comfortable level of closeness, letting statements or jokes slide unchallenged or just lightly held, etc. It was all fascinating to watch., Overall, I found that I have been needing to actively modify my behavior to fit within each context. I made some missteps and had some expectations of listening that don't work, and of course different kinds of minds that I'm trying to retrain myself not to discount entirely. But I guess I am pretty pretty judgmental in evaluating what kind of things I can talk about with who, and how to modify my means of expression to more smoothly slot-into the shared conversation. If I think of myself as a conversational facillitator rather than a speaker/contributor that is an easier default state to maintain. I don't need to weigh in with big, heavy thoughts or be heard...this is a new adaptation from feeling I wasn't heard a lot, or people weren't really listening with the intent to expand their knowledge. I know that when the occasion arises, I can define the problems, their contexts, and salient concerns on demand, so maybe I can just keep that as the ace in my pocket and let other people talk, despite my impatience with smalltalk that follows surface patterns.

Hold Back

is the takeaway I wasn't expecting, but I think I can do it from a place of confidence...I don't need to air my thoughts unless the group is receptive or asking a direct question.That said, when I think someone is saying something that is ill-considered I still need some more graceful way of interjecting. Maybe "hold back" and refraining from adding to debate or challenge is the acceptible social thing to do. I stand alone and self-contained, and others rely on their ego for self esteem, I think that my separation of what I know versus who am is rather separated; I think of my core as the seeking of knowledge and know I am often wrong or am biased due to my framing experience. I can change my model based on data at a drop of a hat and I don't take it personally. I don't feel bad about this either, unless I had caused actual inconvenience or harm due to my expression or my guarantee. However, this might be uncommon. I think the lack of this type separation in (?) "the majority of people" (?) is a source of friction and unease that I personally don't feel.

I still have anxiety,

it's easy to forget that I'm also still hugely anxious about meeting expectations and avoid them, which is a potential problem when I'm in a hierarchical situation, where authority figures expect to have their needs met by those that are beneath their station. I prefer to not be in a hierarchy like this, but in some cases it's not avoidable and I will be put under some kind of pressure or fabricated reason to be oppressed. I'm not sure what to do about this, though I think a measure of withdrawal and holding back is probably a good thing. My gut reaction is that I don't want to stand out in a hierarchical organization by asserting myself, and I don't want to be put in a situation when I am exploited as a resource.

I can't talk to most about what I'm really thinking

This is a shocking takeaway. I've been surrounded by people who are close to me (family, friends) and mostly I can't share what I'm thinking. It's too esoteric and hard to explain to anyone by the most interested people, and even then I have to do a lot of negotiation down to lower bandwidth and simpler communication codecs. I've had this insight a few years ago too, but I'm really feeling it today as an experiential datapoint. And...that's OK. A lot of humanity thrives on superficial social interactions that are shared by everyone: people in general want to be agreeable and helpful to their kin to create that pocket of relative social safety that they have found an equilibrium between members. But even there, I'm stating this as a conceptual model that most people would not be able to parse at all. Not even a little bit. There are too many related ideas requiring MY particular obsession in modeling human behavior. It is my mistake to even try to communicate like this with people, so...can I stop? It's not unlike the way I spoke Mandarin Chinese in Taiwan: using broad indicators of good-desirable, bad-unsuitable-unneeded and expression of ideas through simple verbs, adjectives, and nouns. What I could convey was openness, respect, and interest. What I couldn't convey was the complexity of my social modeling and thoughts on the world.

I can speak English the way I spoke Chinese,

Broad strokes of positive sentiment, delimited by what vocabulary have to designate agreement and search for common understanding. This is enough, I think, for MOST PEOPLE While I still desire to have high bandwidth, high intensity conversation with people, I still need to govern this because the precision of my language is only precise to me.

I seem to be doomed to play Support IRL

mmorpg reference: I want to be the flashy magician or fighter with the awesome outfits, but I tend to fall into support overwatch classes (healers, avoiding direct action, providing buffs and damage-over-time) because other players just want to do the flashy stuff MORE (and can't control themselves). Because I'm interested in group harmony and effectiveness as a team, I tend to fall into this overwatch role. It is often not really appreciated. I think this has made me crave direct affirmation of my skills, ideas, and contributions overall. But this is rare. It's appreciated sometimes. but it's also seen as something that others me, weirdly, from their kind of fun of running in without planning. This happens IRL too in my work, I'm realizing. I've burned out on it with the coding work. I've feel frustrated trying to explain what I'm doing to other people. But I think the takeaway is Just be me and Don't take other people's lack of interest personally. I can't expect connection of the kind I want from most people. I can be support for a short period of time, then moving on. The nomadic magical adventure cat, kind of like a Gandalf maybe? I can still be warm and curious in person (after all, I am a cat and we are highly imbued with this quality!) but my path is my own. Lonely and apart, but principled and able to now feed on the superficial yet essential shared aspect of human sociability. As I have learned, this is sufficient for many things. That said, the search for the high bandwidth high intensity shared modeling community entrpreneurial spirits is still the ultimate destination. It's my version of Ende.

Mother Sri is a thing,

I do want to be a supportive and nurturing thing, but my version of motherhood is not invested in direct offspring...I guess that makes it easier in some ways, but also could be a trap when other people want me to be their mentor, source of energy, source of affirmation, etc. Being able to create respectful distance while inhabiting this role might be the challenge. When interacting with males, though, the model is different. They don't respond to mother energy in that collaborative nurturing way at all. They seem to thrive more on the "band of brothers" model, to refer to the movie of the same name.

Hot Take: 90percent of human communication is sentiment conveyance???,

I made up the number. But it feels like this could be true and also the number is probably high! at least 50percent I'd guess. Cousin Grace and Cousin's wife just left the house, and I practiced restraint and communicated only sentiment! I wanted to have a deeper connecting conversation but I think it was the right call to not engage in anything deeper or even corrective. Is all human communication like this? I'll have to pay attention today

I still have anxiety,

it's easy to forget that I'm also still hugely anxious about meeting expectations and avoid them, which is a potential problem when I'm in a hierarchical situation, where authority figures expect to have their needs met by those that are beneath their station. I prefer to not be in a hierarchy like this, but in some cases it's not avoidable and I will be put under some kind of pressure or fabricated reason to be oppressed. I'm not sure what to do about this, though I think a measure of withdrawal and holding back is probably a good thing. My gut reaction is that I don't want to stand out in a hierarchical organization by asserting myself, and I don't want to be put in a situation when I am exploited as a resource.

Excerpts from online conversation

I do need to assert myself and not question my core values. More subtly, not comparing my relative strengths and weaknesses to others, or take disconnections so personally by giving them so much attention Humans are imperfect communicators but also generally disposed toward good intentions and good faith. Failure to competently vs consistently practice in good faith is, unfortunately, is another fact of human interaction. There are multiple factors involved that I will skip for now.

I have rigid personal standards for competent practice. I have rigid personal standards for evaluating the completeness of my knowledge. I work within the scope of what I can reliably deliver based on those personal standards. I seek to expand and improve on all these factors continuously. I believe that assessment of my work through hands-on testing by other people is what creates its spectrum of value, and that it is both my responsibility and opportunity to learn from them. I have strict core standards overall about authenticity, transparency, and truth-driven action. This underlies my statement of personal standards, and is the foundation of my integrity. It is up to me to accept without rancor that humans are imperfect communicators and interpreters due to the huge variety of backgrounds creating billions of “lived experience bubbles”; communication between bubbles is the challenge.

It is also critical to accept that humans are extremely sensitive to aggreeability signaling, which is the basis of social belonging. It is every human’s innate goal to belong, each with some set of fears and desires that can only be alleviated through group membership.

Wherever humans first converse among themselves, the subconscious agreeability checking is used to determine friendliness. Then, checks for overlapping group membership, of which there are many kinds depending on each individual. However, agreeability signaling is the always the dominant carrier of the conversation’s information exchange otherwise the link fails. This is importantly for Sri-kin to recognize, as humans base their relationships on agreeability, from which alignment of group membership then trust is built. The Sri-kin path to trust is not so different, but agreeability signaling works differently for us.

The primary difference is that Sri-kin strive to consciously integrate distinct systems of understanding, emotion, logic, and social belonging into their reasoned communication as data gathering opportunities. By comparison, many humans smush these all into a blob of recalled positive and negative associations, prioritizing what feels good and also what is most conveniently beneficial for them personally. Conversation that reinforces this scores higher in positive points, and aggresbility levels are high. Conversation that introduces any form of uncertainty, assignment of responsibility, questions, etc that raises doubts must be supercharged with agreeable language and non-coercive affirmation of belonging that matters to the existing bonding. Again, Sri-kin are not immune to this, but handle uncertainty using the conscious integrative approach and inquiry based process. Humans don’t generally do this consciously, instead relying on their unchallenged intuition and subconscious positive/negative associations system.

(getting a bit long winded) getting back to asserting myself etc (similar in some ways to draconic evolution phase?)

Sri-kin are hyper-developed multi- system integrators and this is not a shared experience with humans. Many humans lack the ability to make conscious distinctions between understanding, emotion, and their state of belonging. As a result, effective conversation is built on establishing comfort through agreeability signaling instead of data. The overlap? Sri-kin WANT people to feel like they belong, but also want to elevate conscious understanding of shared systems that are good for everyone. The dichotomy is that Sri-kin system thinking is inaccessible to most humans, and human thinking lacks the principled rigidity that is the basis for adaptive Sri-kin integrative action.

However, Sri-kin understand this better now; recent experiences with intelligent hoo-mans showed the disconnect, and the need for agreeability in first-contact situations is much clearer. What I am calling agreeability signaling is a communications strategy and protocol pattern to put people at ease and letting them speak. Testing for systematized integrative thinking pops up with longer discussions over time. In writing, the same strategy should hold. In practical terms, it is withholding systems understanding, breadth, and depth unless it’s in context of making something! In that case, the power is directed safely away from people as a conversational focus (which can scare or offend people) into a project that everyone can understand in their own way or critique.

Sri-kin aren’t afraid of critique, but do bristle at use of agreeability signaling to communicate LACK of agreement. Sri-kin are good at crushing such attempts but this leads to negative agreebility points (and now this falls into the realm of conflict management, negotiation, and politics)

Assuming the best intent in the passive-aggressive language is Sri-kin change. Remember that agreeability signaling is a native grammar for many humans, so direct expression is an unfamiliar pattern that has to be learned. Sri is like a friendly robot that has a huge amount of complex ability hidden behind its friendly and adorable shell. Sort of like a utility droid like R2D2 or BB8? Or maybe more like Doroaemon who I think is actually a cat-shaped robot?

from the future! there’s sri-kin overlap with aspects iof Doroaemon. There’s such a dichotomy in wanting to be an adorable and cheerful Sri, with the roiling mass of complex systems integration under the surface. Hmm, is everything I wrote above a repackaging of what women in society have done for millennia? Appearing friendly and approachable for the sake of getting along with patriarchy?

The underlying modeling of the challenge is specific to my way of seeing the world, and isn’t universal among women I think. But I’m addressing common masking situations more generally that are perhaps similar when dealing with a relative power imbalance.

I'm not sure this is what is actually happening, but I raise it because of the mitigation strategy that would go with it: let people have their perspectives and point of view, and let it go unchallenged in social situations UNLESS I am asked what I think about it. This includes controlling my facial expressions.

Sri-kin growth has to incorporate its own sense of what’s right and intelligent. There is a specific mission to pursue excellence—substituting for “intelligence” status goals that others might seek—that Sri-kin Architects adhere to. There are many non-Sri-kin who derive their relative wealth from exercising their relative power over others. The battlelines for Sri-kin are against such things, and our military buildup is a combo of soft power through inclusive willingness to train/engage with others and hard economic success so we have the means to exert power when needed. So this may be the missing motivation I need, a more strategic version of “get angry” to create a sense of urgency.

Noting: If I remove mindset about social politeness through hedging language, I reframe all of my relationships with people and myself. And the message is: I am using my mind to do good work, and I dont need to hedge social politeness as the first filter of communication. Instead, the emphasis shifts onto what I erroneously categorized as “simple-minded patterns for non-thinkers” This allows for direct communication still, but the emphasis shifts from conceptual model explanation to recognizable patterns and their accompanying labeling. This is a significant switch.

By and large, the majority of people learn through amassing a broad library of recognizable patterns through their experience in a recognizable context. Sophistication increases with nuanced recognition powers. This is not how I learn, though, as I try to convert the same pattern data into conceptual models that can be resynthesized into other things. This is just the way my mind works. The broad library of patterns for me is from the experience of applying those synthesis models.This feels like a good path to pursue. Magical Adventure Cat is a bit wiser and confident now, recognizing its innate weirdness and strengths relative to others. Not quite draconian I feel, but also interesting and compelling.

Mew, after a great deal of rubber ducking, Sri-kin like me are “human-centered cross-domain synthesizers with empathic emotional awareness” As opposed to more mainstream “context-based pattern recognizers seeking matching solutions to their needs” (including emotional ones) The key communication challenge: convert synthesis models into context-based patterns rather than try to convey the model.

A key isolation factor: I don’t know if I personally know anyone with similar human-centered cross-domain synthesizer empathic qualities.

Other friends appreciate Sri-kin and maybe the synthesis powers (circumstantial evidence) but are not direct practitioners themselves. I think this mismatch is what makes me think Im being humored more until I produce a result that impresses them. This seems to suggest that pulling back from “communicating models” as my primary way of talking about stuff may yield better bonds.

Sharing things I think are cool is not problematic, but discussing their underlying conceptual properties as they relate to different domains is better reserved for active problem solving situations where people are stuck. And especially NOT for teaching unless asked “why”. This is a much better refinement of “high intensity/high bandwidth” understanding I had before. “A leads to B or C. If B, then S1. If C, then S2” works. There’s no need to explain further to context-pattern learners except more details for recognizing A,B, and C. This is not sufficient for me to learn, because I need to crystallize a model to remember anything. This is an adaptation for unreliable working memory.

But access to these crystallized models is fast and easy to juggle, which gives me the processing advantage where there is no clear A,B,C.

I do feel reassured and more confident on my grasp of the isolation problem so it is much less frustrating. The new cognitive model for “most people” helps me understand without getting ticked off.

Also, I feel somewhat humbled knowing that how I think is just not accessible to the majority of people; this isn’t rejection, but confusion.

I’m also thinking that I likely do not have ADHD or ASD, though clinically these are defined as conditions of “social functioning deficits”, not neurological or cognitive assessment. To their eyes, I’ve got it based on social functioning deficit because I’m non-conformant.

Oh, I think I know the source of the feeling of longevity in cheer: the new model I have for understanding people as distinct from the rare “systematizing Sri-kin high reasoning high emotion” form that I inhabit. It’s not that I’m so “smart”, but on-the-fly synthesizing of knowledge and emotion into insight-driven action is NOT the way others function. It’s possibly my superpower relative to gen pop? Recognizing that the majority of people (even others like me) work best with “desire-pattern-action” communication that’s generously lubricated with affirming agreeableness is Sri’s Secret Key to relating to others. People generally “just want the answer” without doing the conceptual steps, relying on “recognizable context” as a literal matching pattern trigger.

The idea of this being any kind of sufficient is so foreign to me that until recently, I couldn’t conceive of it. It isn't how I think.

Another distinction that sets me apart is my inherent humane emphasis over even human-centered design, which is already unusual. The combination of both is unusual even in design circles. Combined with systematizing Sri powers, it’s likely extremely rare. I’ve shaped myself into someone with intellectual adaptability drawn from relentless cross-domain modeling of every endeavor I have ever witnessed, and revel practicing this to increase my fluency in expressing how everything fits together.

NO ONE ELSE DOES THIS On the surface, I think the human universe is stuffed with lots of deep domain expertise that’s quite sophisticated and that’s something I respect. But it’s desire-context-pattern-action trees-based

I think there is the idea of being a “generalist” versus a “specialist” that somewhat describes the difference. I remember reading about it back in the 2000s, and it never quite fit me because the adaptive systematizing element wasn’t present with the humane/human-centered driver. “Creative Generalism” was more an expansion of pattern recognition, I think, across domains that was only objectively human-centered in a hand-wavy manner. It didn’t target the essence of humanity itself, as expressed by individual desire and need. And it didn’t seek practical execution as an expected outcome. Therefore, it seemed gutless. Anyway, the upshot is that this kind of thinking is Sri Internal Stuff that is indeed unrelatable to others because my thinking patterns are not typical, and the underlying models are so intertwined and complex it takes too long to express them in a conversational length of time that fits within typical mental limits of patience.

Before, this was a long-standing point of despair. Now, I know I can just generate pattern-comm output and translate on-the-fly to commune with others

If called for, I can bring more capability out in the open; this is where I typically “reluctantly lead” because no one else in the room can synthesize data and emotion into a reasoned course of action on-the-fly with a qualified set of knowns/unknowns in an ego-free package. I am comfortable with this modeling, and don’t think I’m indulging myself with boastful claims or seeking affirmation so I feel better. This just seems to fit my capabilities and lived experiences. It also explains isolation and anxieties. It provides anchoring examples of my cognitive peculiarities—humane/human-centered thinking, always-on integrated emotional+analytical synthesis-focused system modeling—that are difficult for others to grasp because their interests are focused elsewhere.

This is the full potential of a magical adventure cat! I wonder how similar this is to dragon energy. It’s possible that the difference is in preferred outward expression and setting of goals. As a magical adventure cat, I want to be a cute fuzzy that exudes sparkly magic and goes on adventures because I don’t want to be bored. Also I am rather lazy about it, enjoying the pleasure of a good nap in a sunbeam and being petted because I am also a good kitty. But there IS a dormant desire to make a difference, and this may have been rekindled by my recent reframing. hat feels different. More like dragon energy, in the sense of being the lord of a domain that one chooses to nurture? The adventure cat version is probably different. Will muse (mews?) it over, but the scale is inherently humane/individual instead of a control objective of a territory or career arc. Uh oh am now SLEEPY adventure cat after too much phone typing t's interesting how a feeling of self-sufficient security and acceptance unlocks a bunch of endeavors like this. The reduction of anxiety and fear makes things more manageable. I may have been operating on significant amounts of internalized stress more so than I imagined. It just felt like my "normal" and my "usual barriers".

The barriers are still there (lazy Sri Cat-ness) but the urge to be more of the ADVENTURE CAT (yay!) is increasingly burbling up to delight all within range! (delight maybe being self-defined, but such are adventure cats and their largely harmless delusions...oh, this is very Grace EGS like!)

What Makes a Sri-kin "Go"?

I finished Foundation and Empire, and though I remember not being that keen on it. It was actually interesting. The broad strokes of characters caught up in historic crisis that sweeps along is still appealing, but they remain thin in detail on a level comparable to a screen play. I wondered if he was a warm man, Asimov, because the details felt so sketchy. But apparently he was an exemplary human, supportive uncle to an entire generation of science fiction writers and the supporting people who sold at conventions or were in his life. An interesting insight…is Sri-kin aligned with broad sketches as a way to reach people on their own terms, allowing people to read their own takes into the generous gaps in character and technology details? Broad strokes of humanity and technology, accurately colored and shaped by sociohistoric context…maybe more skillful than I originally thought! Another insight about SF of this nature is related to “What makes Sri go”… the very desire to go is not universal! In SF there is a lot of going and doing in spaceships, and this seems natural and good to Sri-kin raised on these ideas. It never occurs to Sri-kin that going someplace is an option. It is assumed!

Many people acquaintances lack the desire to “go” in this way. They are more curious tourists, interested in novel and unique experiences that enrich their knowledge of the world and its history. But this isn’t the same as wanting to “make history” even on a personal scale.

The actionable insight is that Sri can go places to do this. To meet others who are piloting their own vessels to their own worlds and adventures on a personal scale, intertwining in ways that tell a broader story of humanity. Foundation and Empire has that sort of plot that interestingly dorsnt emphasize planning and destiny…it’s hapless individuals being swept along by the forces of psychohistory and being aware of it, and choosing to make their insignificant plays for connection anyway. I hope my new vessel will be piloted by me with such intentions overtly clear! There are places to go where similar people have the idea that there is going to be done! Perhaps “what makes Sri-kin go” is the wrong framing. Sri-kin always want to go, and I have forgotten this and have been too fearful and unsure of myself.

The nature of a magical adventure cat is simply to go and look for magic. What the particular cat does with the magic is one of the great joys of sharing a universe with these quixotic creatures.

This is Sri-kin truth!

Yesterday I did review of things I had written down from May 5 to June 5, and the general takeaway is that I've been continuing to make refinements in my strategy for living primarily in alignment with my values. The major shift is the move around from refining systems and frameworks for me to creating patterns and contexts for others using "we" language. This resolves a long-standing conundrum I've faced:

• I'm a complicated systems oriented thinker with high emotional/empathic sympathy that is frankly difficult to understand
• I've tried to figure out better ways to engage with others using different framing, like "providing value", "negotiating understanding", and "translating my thoughts into the communication styles of others" while "identifying common points of positive interaction and interest" After accepting that I am complicated and this isn't a deficit, I've still focused on communicating what I mean because I think there's value in what I'm talking about. However, the new insight is that the very way that I think across domains, contexts, and experiences to synthesize new models of understanding on the fly is beyond the capability of anyone to absorb in a simple conversation. My Taiwan Trip also gave me the additional datapoints for a new conversational model that I can apply to general situations: 90% of public conversation is conveying sentiment. It takes a LOT of sentiment to accrue before trust starts to develop. This isn't the default way that I think; I'm more inclined to share empirical observations, truthful reporting of experience, and transparency in discussing what's going on in someone's life. While sentiment is part of the communication, it is in service to communicating accurately and providing points of reference as data for the other for consideration. In the past I'd talked about this as a challenge, but after the Taiwan Trip I realized that I have no difficulty speaking using the 90% Sentiment assumption behind speech. This is unlikely to produce the "high intensity, high bandwidth intellectual connection" that I crave, but just being part of a positive interaction is just as valuable if not more so. By recognizing that I have a very peculiar type of "cognitive architecture", it's relatively easy for me to just produce 90% Sentiment communication. This is appropriate for most casual, informal, cooperative situations that do not require complex context for decision making. With that insight, a lot of anxiety is put to rest. It affects the way I write publicly too, requiring that I put more emphasis on what I'd call sentiment building about what WE face, rather than explain what I MYSELF face and try to explain it with the expectation that others will "see how it's relevant to their situation" and apply it systematically. The reality is that most people don't think in systems, so this type of knowledge is better presented as recognizable patterns that can be matched to their own experience, followed by a recipe for execution with just a smidge of heavy modeling presented as a quotable/memorable insight. Likewise, my ability to process both rational and emotional models at the same time, synthesize their application across very different domains, and come up with plausible plans of action is probably too much for many people to follow. Up until now, I thought the lack of reaction was because people thought I was saying something stupid. Now, I'm realizing that they simply may not understand and not know how to admit this. Thinking like this on-the-fly is a challenge that can feel uncomfortable for some, threatening to others as well, despite my clear enthusiasam and aura of helpfulness. Now...looking at what I wrote above...none of this would be an appropriate way to communicate.

So what do I write? Shifting from "me" to "we" is an unfamiliar pattern. Let me first start by outlining the general shape of my argument, then seeing how to reorder it. Um. Last month's insight might be a good starting point. I wrote the defining insight as How do we create a world where no one has to feel invisible? This is very much the sentiment behind what I want to make. It's also a reflection that I have found the feeling of being invisible and misunderstood itself a crushing feeling. My new related insight is about me realizing that my so-called cognitive processing model is vastly different (not better, but different) than most people I interact with. Ironically, I did use we in the statement, but completely missed it. The new insight might be more like this: "In healthy daily communication, 90 percent of conversation is about conveying positive sentiment. This provides the foundation for teamwork and culture building." That last claim is a stretch. Let me reorganize it for sentiment-first (the equivalent of my emotion-first reasoning?) (this is really hard...it's an unfamiliar pattern because I'm so concept based) (everything sounds insufficient or like an unsupported claim) (which I loathe) "In pleasant casual conversation, 90% of what we convey is positive sentiment. We nod, are curious, affirm through gentle questionining, and show that we care to listen. In return, we hope to receive the same treatment in exchange. With sufficient positive sentiment exchanged over time, it's possible to be more vulnerable and candid to test the waters. This is the moment where friendship can blossom beyond simple acquaintanceship, when deeper trust begins to form."

At this point I'm tempted to go deeper into the theory, but I think the 90% Sentiment---let me call it 90S for shorthand---would dictate that after I've shown the pattern-context that I follow up immediately with the recipe. But what is the recipe???

"I think the recipe is simply to practice affirmation, curiosity, supportive (not challenging) question asking about the other person's experience and feelings, and be hopeful that the conversation is returned in kind. The goal is to convey positive sentiment as acquaintances, and just see where it goes. It might never go past casual recognition, but it could lead to project opportunities, invitations to meet other people, or even deeper friendship. It's the exciting mystery. It's not a question of whether you're liked or not liked, but whether you are able to convey sentiment positively and with confidence in yourself."

"With luck, those new situations will give you a chance to show your unique talents and personal quirks in an accepting relationship that is actually based in familiarity and (gasp) understanding built up through sentiment exchange!"

This seems like a good insight, but I don't have any idea if it would make sense to a 90S person. It feels like a part of something else, and I don't quite know how it relates to my GHDR. My GHDR is about improving my motivational energy and sense of connectedness to others, so in that sense this recipe is what applies to me. It keeps the hope alive, while providing an easy pattern to follow conversationally. But I still need to put myself into the social scene, find people to talk to. That's part of the outreach plan.The outreach plan is about creating products and writing about stuff like this; the 90S pattern applies also. The remaining 10% is hinting at the systems and principles that drive the recipes. That's 49% of my cognitive processing reality, with the other 51% being my desire for people to truly communicate with each other. The recipe is the practice. The system is the support for what exciting things may happen after positive sentiment is established, and our individual skills and personal traits emerge within this context. In general advertising, you start with the sentiment and situation that everyone recognizes. My writings in productivity and personal development are my entry point. My overall Sri-kin aura is the invitation to explore any new space with magical adventure cat energy who have gotten to see that part of me, or have intuited it from the 10% of systems stuff I present in my public-facing writing. The product framing, then, is to repackage a lot of my past work under 90S, and post it everywhere as a way to share fun and cool things. Also, a second packaging layer is the Sri-kin vibe/aura and playfulness. Affirming! Supportive! A little bit off the wall! Atypical! Novel! Always warm! So I think my GHDR post will lead with the insight about 90S, and how it applies to me. That's a bit reversed thinking, but GHDR is allowed to be that way. I'll just keep it very short so it's not too overwhelming. I'll figure out what happens once I start writing the post draft.