spacer
Role Upheaval - The Betrayal of the Sexes
Posted by Joseph Riggio on Saturday, August 05, 2006It seems the world it is a changin’ all the time ... and with the change comes additonal pressure on us to understand our roles in the world - especially what it means to be who we are. My sense is that what it means to be a man or a woman today demands a more deliberate approach and choices than have ever been required before in our history.
Howdy all ... and welcome to the weekend,
I got a couple of responses to my posting yesterday, The Evolution of Man, the majority seemed to question my comments re: women choosing their breeding partners and determining the evolution of the species - both biologically and culturally.
I was reading in another blog today, Villainous Company, about the role of women in marriage, which ultimately went onto question what it is to be a woman today. (There's that "ontological" question again - BTW, Villainous Company is written by a woman about her life, as one I suspect.)
In some ways, while a much more "modern" argument than mine there were aspects of her posting that resonated for me as well. I agree that the ... the world it is a'changin' ... and we either keep up or we get left behind. Of course we can resist - and lots of folks do, some of you know that my opinion is that the whole of the trouble we're seeing today in terms of international conflict - what some are calling "World War III" - is all about this resistance against allowing for the natural process of cultural evolution. However, it seems to me that we don't have to look far from home to see this conflict, for example:
And the ties that bound our parents and grandparents together no longer seem to bind us as closely. Our children seem to struggle against societal expectations. When the world was still a hostile place, cooperation with other people was a precious survival tool. It allowed us to pool our resources and overcome the challenges posed by our environment. Specialization of roles in society ensured that things were done efficiently. But now that technology has eliminated many of the challenges we used to face, we can all afford to be generalists. - from: Villainous Company, What A Long, Strange Trip It's Been, Baby, August 04, 2006
Right in our own backyards so to speak we are undergoing a challenge to what we know to be true regarding how we relate to one another as men and women. "What's expected of us, what's expected by us - in our relationships with one another" These are no longer easy questions to answer as they once would have been. It's no longer so simple as to say - "ME MAN - I provide" and "YOU WOMAN - you take care of house and children."
The current expectations foisted upon us by society include not only, "You can do anything." for both young men and young women, but more "You must do everything." And, from my observations this seems to literally mean ... EVERYTHING!.
The young adults I know are hell-bent on doing EVERYTHING! ... having many relationships (we won't take about "rainbow kisses" or "snowballs" for instance), getting a good job, traveling the world, making a lot of money, being an environmentalist, being a good global citizen, living the good life, having a spectacular home, being in the perfect marriage (someday ... after most of the above has been taken care of first), raising the perfect children (even later on after the perfect marriage has been established) ... I wonder how many of them think they must receive the Nobel Prize as well before they die? IT'S RIDICULOUS!!!
Personally, I see this as a function of growing up in world which has come to the cusp of the values set I call, the "Hedonists" position. This is after all the "Age of Aquarius" where anything and everything is possible - and all it takes is a little pseudo-science, a little magical thinking ... and a willingness to compromise everything else. Then you can indeed ... HAVE EVERYTHING!
So, what's the option ... for me it seems all to simple, Knowing Who You Are First and only then ... Choosing What You Want - and accepting the consequences of what that will take to get. This used to be known as "taking responsibility for one's self" ... now this seems like a ridiculous concept to some in the new-fangled Age of Aquarius ... but than again I am after all an old-fashioned kinda' guy.
Any doors I can open for you ladies?
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Princeton, NJ
The Evolution of “Man”
Posted by Joseph Riggio on Friday, August 04, 2006I think that the model of “ME MAN ... ME BIG HUNTER!!!” and “me woman ... me keep house.” ... is a little understated in terms of the complexity of human evolution and relationship ... here are some of my thoughts about the evolution of men and women, including my considerations around the idea that, “All’s fair in love and war ...”
I think there are a number of issues to consider when we're speculating about the differences and relationships between men and women. Yes, there are obvious physiological differences - men are bigger, stronger, faster and more aggressive on average, women are smaller, heavier (proportionate body mass index) and less aggressive/more affiliative. However, these only tell part of the story.
For instance we also know there are issues of neurological differences as well, both anatomical and hormonal. One of the most obvious is the disproportionate size of the corpus callosum - much thicker (more neuronal mass) in women than men in a significant way. The disproportionate size of the corpus callosum between men and women has led some neuroscientists to speculate that more information is transfered between the left and right hemispheres in women than in men in ordinary cognition. This speculation led to the idea that men may literally think and act faster, leading to a more decisive, "take action" posture - but with less consideration of systemic consequences and wholeness (than women).
An English Oxford trained zoologist, Dr. Clive Bromhall, wrote a book in 2003 - "The Eternal Child," that speculated that the evolution of humankind was based on neoteny (the tendency to retain infantile or even fetal traits into adulthood - e.g.: a lack of body hair compared to other great apes, no significant change in the skeletal structure of the skull producing the pronounced chin or brow ridge development seen in adult apes ...). He further speculated that neoteny was responsible for our behaviors as well, including the ultimate increase in homosexuality in modern societies. It's a fascinating account, although I'd say as he continues to develop his theory he strays more into speculation than science. However, his basic premise of neoteny is sound and biologically reasonable. (See the review by Steve Moxon for a good overview of Bromhall's ideas)
If we stay with the more scientific aspects of Bromhall's book we can share in his more grounded speculations about behavior as well. I'm not ready to go all the way to accepting that homosexuality is due to "advancing neoteny," but I am willing to consider the effect on cultural evolution ala Dr. Clare Graves model. The simplest explanation is that as we continue to increase our cranial capacity to house our larger brains (humans vs. other apes) the evolutionary path favors neoteny. This would likely show up in behavior as well. This was amply demonstrated in the experiments by D.K. Belyaev of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dr. Belyaev selectively bred wild grey foxes for "friendliness" and over successive generations a corresponding change in the physical appearance of the foxes towards neoteny appeared. In fact there is evidence that all domesticated animals show evidence of physiological and behavioral neoteny - and there is good evidence that we are a species of "domesticated" great apes using this paradigm.
In part I think we are now seeing a division in the world that includes among other things "states of neoteny" in our species - where some individuals are showing more traits associated with neoteny than others. This would include "softer, sweeter" men - those who show less of the signs of physical and behavioral aggression for instance. And, (let's get controversial) I think that this has been selectively bred for by women choosing for men who display these traits vs. aggression. It's pretty obvious that evolutionarily women control the breeding population overall, so what women choose for has more of an influence on species evolution and development than what men choose for in terms of reproduction.
Now we're getting somewhere, eh? So now we're faced with a consideration that the "traditional" role models of "ME MAN ... you woman" are no longer how we are ... as an ontological consideration - both in terms of our basic biological evolution and also as this has affected our cultural evolution. Human males and females are much more similar in size, shape and disposition than any other great ape (chimpanzees, orangutans, or gorillas for instance). Yet of all the great apes we may be most like bonobos physiologically and maybe even behaviorally - and in those societies women rule! - and they also make love not war ... very unlike chimps for instance.
So where does this all leave us? I think that I will withhold my conclusions although I've spent a lot of time on this topic (our ape origins, primal behavior and especially issues of submission and dominance) in my recent EPC2 - Exquisite Performance telecoaching programs (the recording are available in the Member's Only Section). Let's suffice it to say that we are still in the process of evolution and coming to terms with our considerations of love and war.
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Princeton, NJ
PS - These are the kind of topics I’ll be taking up in my monthly audio newsletter that’s part of my “UnconventialAdvice™ Private Access™” group membership ... check it out for 90 Days Risk Free on me: UnconventionalAdvice - and you can listen to Free Sample right now!
(2) Comments • (1) Trackbacks • Permalink
Expert Mind?
Posted by Joseph Riggio on Thursday, August 03, 2006The idea of the “EXPERT” - someone who is “heads and shoulders” above others in a particular domain is something that has facinated me for quite sometime ... “Who are these “experts?” ... “What makes someone an “expert?” ... “How does one become an “expert?” Now I have some answers ...
Hello all,
I picked up a copy over the weekend of this months “Scientific American” magazine (August 2006) - largely because of the title story, “Secrets of the EXPERT MIND” - Become Good At Anything (emphasis theirs). I thought, “WOW!” ... “Now I’m gonna find out everything I’ve always wanted to know about experts ... a topic that has fascinated me forever!” Well, I really didn’t think that but I did think that it would be a totally fascinating read ... and it was.
The basic examination is the essence of the study of “experts” - chess players/masters, especially Grand Masters. This has been the domain of the study of experts for well over 100 years now. In fact they use a terms in the article I love, “The Drosophila of Cognitive Science” - referring to the favorite subject of genetics study, the common fruit fly, because they so totally suit that work, largely due to the ability to induce these changes and their fast life cycle - i.e.: birth to reproduction. As a cognitive scientist myself, (my doctoral work was completed on the nature of “transpersonal decision-making in human systems” - a neurolinguistic modeling approach; I’d say that qualifies me at least at the periphery of being a cognitive scientist, eh?), I loved the approach the article took and where it went within the topic.
Essentially, there’s not much new to folks who have studied (human) “experts” and/or “expertise.” The general rule is simple - experts do indeed do things extraordinarily better than their colleagues within the area of their expertise - not just a little better, but a whole lot better. Almost always this has to do with their ability to perceive the situation and make decisions leading to superior performance in that area where they have expertise. However - and this is important - this expertise seldom if ever crosses over to other areas of their lives. In other words an “expert” in chess, a Grand Master, does not necessarily make better decisions in any other area of their life, or have an ability to “think” better or more strategically than anyone else outside of their chess play.
What is interesting though are two subtle points:
The first is that expertise is about pattern recognition ... no surprises here ... however what’s interesting is that their ability to recognize pattern is typically confined to the first few seconds of thought, not to long and arduous consideration. What experts do is build up a “vocabulary” of pattern in their area of expertise over many years (the article suggests a minimum of ten) that is instantly available to them in total when they are perceiving a situation contained within the domain of their expertise - a few seconds to perceive what would take someone skilled much, much more time and would be totally unavailable to the novice.
The second is that expertise is largely a learned phenomena, not a genetic phenomena. That those individuals who become experts have the advantage of beginning early and continuing over long periods of time developing their knowledge and skills. It’s only beyond this learning process that any natural (i.e.: genetically based) talent even has the chance to show up. Again, no surprise here either, however what is interesting are the statistics of age and success that lead to the motivation for young children to do what it takes to become experts over time.
There’s another point embedded in the article as well that I found especially intriguing - a comparison between those who could be considered experts and those who are not:
“Without a demonstrably immense superiority in skill over the novice, there can be no true experts, only laypeople with imposing credentials. Such, alas, are all too common. Rigorous studies in the past two decades have shown that professional stock pickers invest no more successfully than amateurs, that noted connoisseurs distinguish wines hardly better than yokels, and that highly credentialed psychiatric therapists help patients no more than colleagues with less advanced degrees. And even when expertise undoubtedly exists - as in, say, teaching or business management - it is often hared to measure let alone explain.” - Scientific American, August 2006, pp.: 66
What’s interesting there to me is the embedded claim that there are no experts in stock analysis, wine or psychiatry - while it’s evident (at least to the author) that experts in teaching and business management exist. While I can’t speak to the lack of expertise suggested I can definitely speak to the expertise in business management as I spent a good five years of my life studying and working with folks who could be called “business management experts” in doing my doctoral research and writing. I have to agree that expertise definitely exists in this domain - there are those who consistently perform “heads and shoulders” above their colleagues in this domain.
I don’t however agree with the idea that it is so difficult to study business management expertise, it’s just picking the right thing to study. The example I’ll offer is in comparison to studying chess masters. No one would dream about studying the “behavior” of chess experts in regards to them being experts - e.g.: Bobby Fishers extreme bad behavior at tournaments or reclusiveness. The way they pick or move pieces physically is not the topic of “expert study” when it comes to chess, instead it’s the way they think and make decisions that makes all the difference. And, what consistently rises above all other considerations is how they have a wider and more penetrating scope of consideration during play - due to their ability to perceive larger chunks of information. Because they are considering larger chunks of information they are literally considering less information at a cognitive level than a novice must. The article in Scientific American does a great job explaining this - so I’ll leave the specifics to them.
Yet when studying business, what virtually everyone has studied is the behavior of the management ... and usually after the fact, e.g.: “What we/I did ...” or “What happened was ...” However, the information is in the moment not after the fact, and it’s not in the behavior but in the decision-making process that leads to behavior. When you extract the decision-making process and what’s contained within it you can re-create elements of expertise that lead to behavior. While the behavior is the manifest form of expertise, i.e.: what experts “do,” it’s what behind that behavior that generates it that really counts ... but more about that some other time, eh - I’ve already gone on long enough for one days reading.
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Princeton, NJ
PS - We’ve done two things to make it easier for you to get BlogNostra ... 1.) set-up the RSS feed for BlogNostra - the RSS feed link to is now working just right, so use it to create an automatic download to your newreader and each time I post you’ll get a copy of BlogNostra delivered directly to you, and 2.) we’ve also set up my new weekly newsletter Authentically Living which will feature some articles from BlogNostra as well as my comments on these postings beyond the postings themselves - you can sign-up for Authentically Living on any page of my website. You’ll find the sign-up box in the top right-hand corner of the page - it’s free, we keep your information extremely private and you can opt-out anytime you like - however in the you’ll get the best of BlogNostra delivered directly to you for your review at your convenience and leisure, articles that I’ll only be posting to Authentically Living and even some special audio podcasts we have in store just for subscribers ... so go ahead join me in these exciting times and sign-up for an RSS feed from BlogNostra and your subscription to Authentically Living now!
(4) Comments • (2) Trackbacks • Permalink
Do Numbers Lie?
Posted by Joseph Riggio on Wednesday, August 02, 2006Good day ... again,
It’s an interesting choice isn’t it ... to “DECIDE” it’s going to be a good day ... instead of waiting for a good day to show up. This is one of the many options I think become available to us as we begin more and more to choose our lives ... what kind of life we will have in essence. This is at the heart of what I spend my time doing, both on my own AND when I’m with others ... especially my clients. Sometimes it’s as simple as offering an embedded suggestion ... “Have A Good Day!” ... like a greeting of sorts ...
I been writing and thinking about the Graves Model and what I like to call “Graves Modeling,” by which I mean modeling out the responses that are evident in a person, or a business, or an organization or a whole society using Dr. Clare W. Graves model of values. I see this model and the modeling process I refer to as highly dynamic, BTW so did Dr. Graves. He often said two things - A) that people are capable of accessing all levels up to the level they’ve evolved to themselves at any given time - so they are not “a Five” or “a Six” ... they are not stuck in a level but are free to move through the levels of these values sets he’s described as is most appropriate to their situation from their point of view, and B) that all people should be allowed to “BE” ... which is how he referred to acknowledging and respecting where people are in their own journey. These two points are at the center of this dynamic modeling process as I use it.
A confession ... I think of all people (myself included) as being on a journey, a path of personal evolution. By the very nature of being alive and moving through the world, especially in regard to others, we can’t help but to be more aware of ourselves - even if in an extremely tenuous way, even if ever so slowly. One of the things I’d add into this thinking is that the further along we’ve come - in terms of our personal evolution - the more quickly we move along this path. Essentially, the more we know already the larger the base we have to build upon ... a “critical mass” as my own mentor Roye Fraser liked to call it.
What’s interesting to think about regarding Dr. Graves material can be how it creates conflict ... as I mentioned ... but also how it creates or at least can create community. These values seem to progress through a movement not only of shifting referential positions - internal/self ... external/other - but through a larger and larger scope of consideration as well. Initially, the only consideration is about survival and self, Level One. The individual/societal evolution expands from there through a landscape of social awareness to include other in relation to self all the way up and through Level Six. Then there is a quantum shift ... systemic interest overrides self-interest at Level Seven ... at all along the way as the evolution was building there was more and more room to include the consideration of others, including a consideration of the system at large - e.g.: the environment, the planet ... - within individual and societal perception, thinking and response.
As the system evolves, and the individual within it as well, there is the potential to include more variety, more diversity and open the boundaries to allow for differences while remaining connected. I think this may be the basis for community ... allowing for differences while remaining connected. I’d even offer a larger possibility ... the more difference we can and do tolerate the stronger and more well-formed the community we belong to and engage in.
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Princeton, NJ
PS - Download (or listen to online if you prefer) my sample audio file absolutely free (you don’t even have to fill in any stupid forms - although you’d be a fool not to register as a member of this site in my opinion) from my newest program “UnconventionalAdvice™” ... in any and every case ... ENJOY!
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Running Numbers
Posted by Joseph Riggio on Tuesday, August 01, 2006The impact of the Grave’s Values Set modeling today ...
Good Morning ...
For years we’ve known that values drive response through a process of setting up the way individuals and even whole societies perceive the world they live and operate in - simply put our values create our behaviors. Dr. Clare Graves spent a lifetime doing work around “values sets” of both individuals and cultures, eventually postulating a model of the evolutionary cycle of value systems. I’m going to do my best to make this as simple as possible ... Dr. Graves wrote extensively about at least six values sets that he delineated were fully evolved on the planet during the time of his work, and at least two more that were emerging (I think one of Dr. Graves favorite words might have been “emergent"). So we would have to consider at least eight values models if we were cataloging his life’s work. However, we really only need to speak about two of these for our purposes today ... his value sets “Five” and “Six.”
I’ve chosen these because they are by far the most prevalent in our current “modern, first-world” societies. Simply put these models represent the Materialistic and the Populist positions of values. I’ll begin by laying out what I think you’ll find in when you come into contact with these values as “types” using Dr. Graves work on modeling values.
Let me share just a little of my Grave’s Modeling process with you:
5s = SELF-PROTECTIVE, i.e.: self-interest pulled into the center of the individual and framed in terms of materialistic security. It’s about making sure “we have enough” - which is unbounded so therefore there can never be enough. There’s always someone who’s got more ... more money, more power, more knowledge, more skills ... more, more, MORE!!! And, anyone who’s got more is a threat of some kind, because they might have what you need/want at any moment and you won’t have it or have access to it. So the key is get “enough” so that, that can’t happen. “Remember there’s no one to count on but ourselves ... so get out there and do it to them, before they do it to us.”
6s = HEDONISTIC, i.e.: self-interest extended to the group and framed around “being happy and having fun.” It’s about life becoming an adventure ... in Disney-esque terms. Not “real” adventure ... i.e.: no threat, but the sense of adventure ... “WOW ... this is going to be exciting” ... to the bungee-company operator who’s been certified and licensed by the state with multi-million dollar liability insurance policies to cover any inadvertent errors ... “Are you sure that this will hold me and that everything will be okay?” This is the aspect of six that defers any real personal responsibility putting it onto the system instead ... to become responsible for taking care of them and others (think U.S. tort litigation if you will ... Advocate “become Senator” John Edwards standing tall on the shoulders of those nasty five doctors and hospitals delivering babies for dirty money ... that is rightfully “ours” ... er, I mean yours ...).
So you can probably begin to see how these values positions put people into conflict ... especially when they don’t even realize what’s in conflict are their values.
We’ll pick it up again tomorrow ...
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Princeton, NJ
