Declaration of Independents!

Think for yourself. Be truly, deeply independent.

On this Independence Day it is high time to liberate ourselves from dualistic, concrete, black-and-white, us/them, right/wrong, good/evil, all or nothing, right/left, Democratic/Republican thinking.

Declare your independence from the simplistic, destructive, two-party mentality in which you pick which box defines you, your opinions, relationships, emotions, and how you should think about a variety of issues, so you don’t have to figure out your true values.

Epidemic of Mindlessness

We have become progressively more polarized over the decades for a variety of reasons, fueled by manipulated fear and incitement. We have been artificially pitted against each other. We have conformed to groupthink. (see Let’s You and Him Fight: Can We Overcome a Manipulated Conflict?)

Shed Your Skins – Be Post-Partisan

Appeals to be bipartisan, trans partisan, or nonpartisan, to “reach across the aisle” are still part of the problem and reflect dualism and concrete thinking.

Can we evolve past this duality? Can we break out of hardened categories that limit our thinking and range of experience? Can we simultaneously hold one view falsely associated with left and another associated with right or hold a view that transcends both?

Hopefully we are approaching a tipping point. Below are some of my attempts from my earlier work to address this divide.

* THE POLITICAL MATURITY SCALE

* THE NINE DOT PROBLEM

* SECOND ORDER CHANGE

THE POLITICAL MATURITY SCALE: BEYOND RIGHT-LEFT POLITICS   

by Diane Perlman, Ph.D © 2003

Political Maturity in Addressing Conflict Scale (PMACS) Items

Introducing the Concept of Political Maturity

This is an attempt to reframe the simplistic, dualistic right-left, liberal - conservative categories in public discourse according to the dimension of “Political Maturity.” Right - Left categories can be used to reduce, dismiss, and demonize those with opposing views in ways that stop thinking and foreclose dialogue. By being descriptive, issues can be raised more accurately, intelligently, deeply and with greater maturity. The Political Maturity Scale is intended to take us “outside the boxes.”

Politically Immature vs. Politically Mature

Strategic Maturity in policies, rhetoric, and actions

“First-order change” - addressing the symptom vs. “Second-order change” addressing the relationship system

Provokes unintended consequences vs. Produces intended consequences

Increases tension vs. Decreases tension

Reactive vs. Proactive

Increases fear and danger vs. Decreases fear and danger (people are more dangerous when afraid)

Provocative, threatening, punishing vs. Calming, reassuring, positive inducements

Destructive vs. Constructive

Polarizing vs. Collaborative, Synergistic

Punitive, Retributive  Justice vs. Restorative, Reparative, Transitional and Transformational Justice

Violent force vs. “Metaforce™" (political, economic, social, educational, moral force, positive inducements)

Foreclosing options vs. Generating new options

Ends justify means vs. Using better means for better ends, integrity of means and ends

Bilateral, dualistic vs Multilateral, bringing in helpful parties, stakeholders

Humiliating, intimidating, backing into a corner vs Giving adversary a face-saving way out

Win/Lose orientation vs Win/Win, Mutually beneficial strategies

“Conventional wisdom"  vs Creative

Short term focus vs long term thinking, intuition

Reckless policies vs. Cautious policies

Domination vs Mutuality

Mutually Assured Destruction vs. “Mutually Assured Survival™"

Cognitive Maturity

Misperceives cues vs. Perceives cues accurately,  intended meaning

Focus on one dimension at a time vs ability to focus on more than one dimension (Piaget)

Simplistic, concrete, black & white thinking vs. Complex, multidimensional, nuanced thinking

Rigidity vs. Flexibility, Adaptability

Immediate focus vs. Long-range thinking

Superficiality vs. Depth

Linearity vs. Multidimensionality

Theory driven, self-justifying vs. Data driven, willing to revise opinions and attitudes

Poor reality testing, perceptions dominated by emotions and false beliefs  vs. Objectivity, seeing patterns

Static, compartmentalized, fragmented view vs. Dynamic understanding

Dishonest vs. Truthful

Acausality vs. Causality

Dichotomous vs. Transcendent approach

Emotional, Relational Maturity

Gripped by right & wrong vs. Focus on improvement

Concrete, physical,  psychologically ignorant  vs. Psychological, dynamic understanding

Me and my people are always right vs ability to criticize oneself and one’s group when warranted

Self-absorption vs ability to take perspective of the Other

Bravado, arrogance vs. Sensitivity, humility, vulnerability

Need to intensely hold certain beliefs  vs. Willingness to change attitudes and beliefs based on new information

Ego Driven vs. Motivated by Higher Self, Self Originating

Justify previous actions, statements, beliefs vs. self- criticism, learning from experience

See events as unrelated vs. understanding cause and effect

Need to blame other vs. curiosity, responsibility, understanding Other’s motivation, rationale (even if you don’t agree)

Denial of responsibility for one’s actions, effects on Other, provocation vs. Taking responsibility for effects of one’s actions on Others  (Perlman’s “Political Heisenberg Insecurity Principle”)

Externalization vs. Self awareness

External locus of control vs Internal locus of control

Gripped, consumed by emotional forces vs. clear, objective thinking

Denial of death, desire to master death vs. Awareness of mortality and vulnerability

Proud vs. Humble

Ruthless, cold expedience vs. Compassionate

Primitive, archetypal imagery vs. humanized, mature understanding

Ahistorical, acontextual vs. Contextual

Dehumanization of Other vs.  Empathy for the Enemy

Submission to authority, (only following orders) vs. Willingness to challenge authority

Projection vs. Consciousness

Stereotyped, primitive enemy imaging vs. Understanding the Other

Spiteful vs. Yielding

Vengeful vs. Problem-solving, Healing

Controlling, dominating vs. Empowering

Paranoid style (possibly self-fulfilling) vs. Reassuring style

Misrepresent intentions vs. Communicate sincere intentions

Undermine trust vs. Build trust

Under/Overestimate Other Bias vs. Accurate estimation

Creating enemies vs. De-enmification

Engendering moral outrage vs Inspiring respect 

Political Maturity Ratings

1 Destructive Dictators & Despots  2 Dangerous Unconsciously Impulsive     3 Harmful Immature  4 Colluding Neutral     5 Helpful Mature      6 Constructive Wise    7 Creative Transcendent – Visionary, Transformative.  Courageous

THE NINE DOT PROBLEM

Our guiding metaphor is the Nine Dot Problem. The goal is to connect the nine dots with four straight lines without picking up your pen from the paper.  It is best to try to solve this problem now before looking at the solution.

Most people struggle for a long time, and after much frustration conclude that it is impossible. Many experience the same futility about war, the nuclear threat, terrorism, and ethnic conflicts. Like the nine dot problem, they seem impossible to resolve.  A common answer is that we haven't tried hard enough, so it's necessary to do more of the same -- more show of force, retaliation, "sending a message", using threats and coercion, building new weapons systems, stirring up more fear. No matter how hard we try, it seems impossible to solve the problem.

What prevents us from seeing a solution is that we limit ourselves by thinking in old ways that don't work. When they fail, we say it's impossible, or blame the parties. We are so boxed into our usual ways of operating that we don't realize where we can look for a solution. 

In the book Change: The Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution, (Watzlawick, P.,Weakland, J.,  & Fish, R. (1974) W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, New York, the nature of change is elaborated.

“Almost everybody who first tries to solve this problem introduces as part of his problem-solving an assumption which makes the solution impossible.  The assumption is that the dots compose a square and that the solution must be found within that square, a self-imposed condition which the instructions do not contain.  His failure does not lie in the impossibility of the task, but in his attempted solution. Having now created the problem, it does not matter in the least which combination of four lines he now tries, and in what order, he always finishes with at least one unconnected dot.  This means that he can run through the totality of first-order change possibilities existing within the square, but will never solve the task.  The solution is a second-order change which consists in leaving the field and which cannot be contained within itself....” (p.25)

“Very few people manage to solve the nine dot problem by themselves. Those who fail and give up are usually surprised at the unexpected simplicity of the solution. The analogy between this and many real-life situations is obvious.  We have all found ourselves caught in comparable boxes, and it did not matter whether we tried to find the solution calmly and logically or, as is more likely, ended up running around frantically in circles.  But, as mentioned already, it is only from inside the box, in the first-order change perspective, that the solution appears as a surprising flash of enlightenment beyond our control.  In the second-order change perspective it is a simple change from one set of premises to another of the same logical type.  The one set includes the rule that the task must be solved within the (assumed) square; the other does not.  In other words, the solution I found as a result of examining the assumptions about the dots, not the dots themselves. Or, to make the same statement in more philosophical terms, it obviously makes a difference whether we consider ourselves as pawns in a game whose rules we call reality or as players of the game who know that the rules are “real” only to the extent that we have created or accepted them, and that we can change them.” (p. 25 – 26.)

​

​

A Solution to the Nine - Dot Problem

Second Order Change 

​

Most approaches we use, such as sanctions, deterrence, counter-terrorism, all forms of coercion and violent force, represent first order thinking. First-order change occurs within a system, but the system itself remains unchanged.

In second order change, the system itself and the nature of the relationships are transformed. For example, arms reductions negotiations are first-order approaches, locked into a framework of assumptions about enmity and militarism. All words and actions attempt to control the symptom without transforming the system, often interpreted in an environment of mistrust. 

By contrast, a friendly visit to China with ping-pong diplomacy, a joint space venture, and Gorbachev’s unilateral initiative to withdraw from the nuclear arms race that ended the 50-year Cold War represent second order approaches, since both alter the basic nature of the relationship and all of the assumptions about that relationship. It allows for new and different interactions to occur. 

The material on this website represents second order thinking.

The Human Psyche

The fragile situation in the world today has come about by the workings of the human psyche. Automatic responses are "inside the box" and make the situation worse. Psychological processes that are very basic to our nature, especially the ways in which human beings create enemies are at the heart of global threats to security. By coming to understand these processes, we will be more able to transcend them. 

The results of our behaviors are challenging us to go beyond them, to be conscious. By going "outside the box" of our limitations, by expanding our frame of reference, we can reach a place where workable solutions may be generated. We can act consciously, carefully and deliberately to make choices that will enhance the quality of life on this planet. 

Global Emergency

We are living at the most dangerous time in history, with global weapons trade, terrorism, ethnopolitical conflict, increasing access to fissile materials and weapons of mass destruction, and environmental degradation. The stakes are as high as they can possibly be. Exquisite consciousness is required In order to transcend such dangers.

​​See Wise Power™ Paradigm: Beyond Hard, Soft and Smart Power  Quantum Politics and Second Order Change

Design by Diane Perlman, Photoshopped by Mirah Kriger

FIRST ORDER CHANGE 1OC                   SECOND ORDER CHANGE 2OC 

Old way of thinking                                  New way of thinking

Addresses symptoms                                Addresses causes

Quantitative change                                  Qualitative change

Change in behavior                                   Change in relationship

Change within a system                           Transformation of the system

Linear, partial                                             Multidimensional, multi-level

External                                                      Deep

Transactional                                             Transformational

Continuous change                                   Discontinuous leap

Conflict resolution                                     Conflict transformation

Compromise, unstable                              Create new reality, win-win, enduring, stable

No endgame                                               Endgame

Political immaturity                                    Political Maturity

Inside the Box                                             Outside the Box

Hard, Soft & Smart Power                          Wise Power, Transcend Method