I think I may have just accidentally deleted a draft post that I wrote last week, thinking that it had already been published. Oh well, we’ll never know now!
I’m working with an ADHD coach at the moment and it’s really helping.
One great insight of the last week or so is that the same actions I’ve learned to take to remedy the depletion of executive function (dysregulation) can also be used to reduce the chances of dysregulation in advance. And of course, prevention is better than cure, right? Because tired Lloyd is miserable *and* incapable Lloyd. So although it’s great that I’ve found gentle music (Chopin’s Nocturnes and my ‘Baroque Adagios’ playlist) to be calming and restorative at the end of the day, I can also start my day this way and give myself a better chance of making it through.
Another side of this is that looking at the shadow side of the characteristics of regulation give hints to what I might see as red flags warning of impending doom. So for example, in a regulated state, I find it easy to access compassion, but when/if i can spot myself sliding into rescuing, martyrdom or enabling then I’m getting a heads up not only that I’m doing things that I don’t want to do routinely, but also that I’m doing things that are likely to deplete my executive function.
I’m also thinking a lot about how scenes get formed out of small groups and individuals. And what you can do to nurture and nourish such scenes and thereby increase the chances of some ‘scenius‘ emerging.
If you know me, you’ll know that I tend towards laissez-faire approaches to getting people together and helping them form relationships and networks and do useful stuff. But there are times when you have to do something more active or interventionist and remind people that you do know what you’re talking about. Another aspect of this is what Brian used to say at C4CC. When someone would describe us as ‘catalysts’ he would point out that catalysts remain unchanged once the reaction that they’ve helped get started is complete. It goes for the work we did at C4CC as a whole, but as I write, I think perhaps that at the time it was mostly about how we branded Tuttle Consulting.
Anyway, Dave Snowden has written a brilliant post that reminded me of all this, (and reassured me of my own preferences) as a continuation of his series on ‘trialectics’. If you’re allergic to theological explanations, then skip to the bit headed “Three Positions in Ordinary Language”.
I’ve fallen into the trap before of seeing these three positions as a ladder to be climbed, that I’m taking a more advanced stance by believing in innate capacity than those facilitators who think it’s their only job to fix some assumed deficit in the group or individuals. (Mutually) Transformative encounters can be very exciting (and/or disturbing) but they’re not a one-size-fits-all approach or the ultimate goal either. I’ve experienced the best work coming from taking what Dave calls an ‘aporetic’ stance (what a great word that is!) and being open to what’s really going on (and therefore which approach is needed) in the room. But this gives me a mental framework for it that makes much sense. The theological/historical background is the cherry on the top and fits well with conversations I’m having in Unitarian circles.
Amazon tried to push some Peppa Pig at me this morning. Foolish algorithm that conflates “new parent” with “millennial cultural tastes”. My child will be fed Bill & Ben, Noggin The Nog and Bagpuss – they never did me any harm!
Never a bad time (especially the week after a full moon) to revisit Rushkoff’s stuff here from Present Shock.
Perfect Path 