Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-28-2009, 04:44 AM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default Mono wiring vs. poly wiring

In an effort not to completely hijack the book recommendation thread, I'm taking this discussion to a new thread.

The discussion started here:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1096

I'm pulling my post that I consider most pertinent to this, but I suggest reading the whole thread to get the full picture.


Quote:
Of course it doesn't to you...you are not mono wired.

What one mind reads as a guide to enable you to realize something, the other mind interprets it as a potential threat. It's really quite simple that two people can interpret the same stimulus differently.

If a punch is thrown at the average person on the street it is usually seen as a pretty threatening thing that elicits a defensive response.

If a punch is thrown at a trained fighter it is viewed as a stimulus that elicits an offensive response.
Ok, as a person who works in special needs education and therapy and has a certain amount of knowledge in the area of brain wiring, I have to call bullshit on that. Sorry for the harsh words but there is nothing to suggest that a mono wired mind would see the world as differently as you claim or that something that clearly doesn't make sense only doesn't make sense to me because I'm not mono-wired (which I dispute anyway...I'm not wired either way). Yes, two people can interpret the same stimulus differently but it is a huge and unsupported leap to chalk that difference to being mono wired or poly wired. You can say that it's just how your mono mind sees things, but that would have more to do with flawed reasoning than having a mono mind.

First of all the fighting analogy you use doesn't apply to your claim because a person isn't wired as a fighter. They are trained. So if you're going to use that example, you're essentially arguing against your own "wired" argument.

Second, to chalk such differences of understanding up to wiring is a cop out. It's a way to absolve a person of the responsibility of having to take the effort to stretch and understand broader ways to view things.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-28-2009, 04:45 AM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
In an effort not to completely hijack the book recommendation thread, I'm taking this discussion to a new thread.

The discussion started here:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1096

I'm pulling my post that I consider most pertinent to this, but I suggest reading the whole thread to get the full picture.




Ok, as a person who works in special needs education and therapy and has a certain amount of knowledge in the area of brain wiring, I have to call bullshit on that. Sorry for the harsh words but there is nothing to suggest that a mono wired mind would see the world as differently as you claim or that something that clearly doesn't make sense only doesn't make sense to me because I'm not mono-wired (which I dispute anyway...I'm not wired either way). Yes, two people can interpret the same stimulus differently but it is a huge and unsupported leap to chalk that difference to being mono wired or poly wired. You can say that it's just how your mono mind sees things, but that would have more to do with flawed reasoning than having a mono mind.

First of all the fighting analogy you use doesn't apply to your claim because a person isn't wired as a fighter. They are trained. So if you're going to use that example, you're essentially arguing against your own "wired" argument.

Second, to chalk such differences of understanding up to wiring is a cop out. It's a way to absolve a person of the responsibility of having to take the effort to stretch and understand broader ways to view things.
Please see our previous thread Ceoli..have a good night my friend.
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-28-2009, 06:00 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,639
Default

I had a conversation last night with someone that considers themself poly and is pretty mainstream, their opinon of our poly group and those who were at it was that we were all flakey freaks. They stuck around to hear more and to find some community, but they are not big into books such as the "Ethical Slut" either...they also don't use the language or live poly in such an intellectual way... I suspect most don't. Most people don't discuss things as we do on here I suspect. they just live their lives as they need to. They are probably not as fraught with intellectual crap such as defintions as I am I sometimes wonder.

My ex girlfriend is very mono wired and also feels threatened by poly and the "Ethical Slut" book. She and I tried out non monogamy and it made her physically sick it went against her wiring so much. She is really struggling with the fact that I am again in a triad and pretty much rolls her eyes and thinks that we are the ones that are fucked in the head. I know a lot of people who think that, the whole team I work with does (I work on a team of 7 staff that supports 16 people with developmental delays and disabilities I could speak for hours about the mono and poly wiring I see in my clients! But that would not be appropriate)... They would never live as I do and have all talked about the possibility and come to that conclusion. They feel threatened by poly also.

I don't know how much of it is wiring and how much of it societal, but does it really matter? The majority thinks this way. End of story. We just have to live our truth and get on with it instead of arguing details.... its becomes way too personal and dwells on semantics. At least for me it does.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-28-2009, 11:33 AM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
I don't know how much of it is wiring and how much of it societal, but does it really matter? The majority thinks this way. End of story. We just have to live our truth and get on with it instead of arguing details.... its becomes way too personal and dwells on semantics. At least for me it does.
To me, it matters when people start using wiring as an excuse to not bother to understand a point of view that may be different from their own or when wiring is used as an excuse to make assumptions about a whole population of people.

I brought this up because Mono claimed that it was his "mono wiring" that caused him to have a different understanding of basic logic and reasoning. It's not about whether people are wired mono or poly, but how much does that wiring actually affect how we see things. Scientists have been having that discussion for years and still can't come up with a definitive answer. And it's fine for people to have their own experience of that, but I'm certainly going to call it to task when it is used as a reason to make assumptions about some very basic principles of being a person. (especially saying something like a clearly illogical leap of reasoning doesn't make sense to me only because I'm not mono-wired)

As long as people continue to act as if they are two different worlds or two different species of people, it does nothing but create a great mechanism for marginalization. Honestly, a friend of mine put it best: Being poly is like being mono, except with more people. Honestly, there's really not that much of a difference, so why do we have to act like there is?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-28-2009, 01:50 PM
Alexandra Alexandra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23
Default

In posts elsewhere, I've seen Mono refer to his mono-world view as a black-and-white view of things. I thought that was odd when I read it. But then, I'm not really a black-and-white type myself, and I just put it down to differences between people.

And now I'm thinking that the whole mono - poly dynamic is actually a spectrum, with monogamy at one end and polyamory at the other. Somehow that spectrum includes all and any variations, such as polygamy, swinging etc.

I'm pretty certain that I am poly by nature, but I've been kind of suckered into the dominant normative standard way of doing things by society, family etc.

I've made a start at trying to open my long term relationship (I started a thread about it here), and so I'm finding these discussions very interesting.

I have often found myself at semantic and ideological odds with people about words and concepts such as have been listed above. And quite often, during the following discussion, friends have said something like "wow, I never thought about it that way before... that makes a lot of sense..." This kind of response makes it look as if a lot of what people think they think is in fact conditioning rather than hard-wiring.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-28-2009, 03:22 PM
GroundedSpirit GroundedSpirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England USA
Posts: 1,231
Default Wiring

I think both Red & Ceoli have made valid points in this discussion. I relate to Red when she bring up (basically) "Why does it matter" because sometimes we tend to "think" ourselves into a "can't see the tree for the forest" situation. And that I agree with !
And yet Ceoli raises the important point that in trying to build broader awareness and better understanding/communication, we have to toss stuff like this on the table occasionally. Being someone with some reasonable background in brain chemistry myself and trying to stay somewhat current with developments, I also shiver a bit when I hear anyone throw out a statement about being "wired" for anything ! That's real dangerous & debatable territory.
But I do firmly believe that the ONE thing we are all "wired" for is a need for safety & security. And a second high amperage circuit there is connected to keeping things......predicable....known. We tend to resist change - be it in in our lifestyle or our thinking. It requires energy and threatens to pull us out of our "comfort" zone. We don't like that ! (most of us)
And what bigger tiger is there to threaten our security & comfy zone than having all the "values" we were raised with tossed out as bait ? But maybe - just maybe the tiger is paper ? Whether to "fight or flee" (that basic wiring) is in the end very much an individual choice. Some are braver than others. And some have found lots of paper tigers.

GS
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-28-2009, 07:28 PM
AutumnalTone AutumnalTone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro
Posts: 2,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
Ok, as a person who works in special needs education and therapy and has a certain amount of knowledge in the area of brain wiring, I have to call bullshit on that.
In terms of "hard wiring," I'll agree that's the case.

When one considers that we also "wire" our brains by building synaptic pathways via education and training, then one can discuss "wiring" in that fashion and how it affects prehension. If one has firmly-established neural pathways associated with relationships, then different understandings of relationships do go against that "wiring."

Now, as we can change that sort of "wiring" and reprogram our brains, then it certainly doesn't doom us to a lifetime of being unable to grasp a different viewpoint or experience. The question is one of finding where the "hard wiring" leaves off and the "soft wiring" begins.

There are folks for whom a single, lifelong pairing is the only thing they're comfortable with. Others are only comfortable with a series of exclusive pairings. Others with a strong pairing and some dalliances on the side. Others with two or three pairings at a time. And so on. I suspect there is a spectrum of proclivities due to nature, and then a bunch of modification possible due to nurture.

So, I see it a good thing to discuss the differences in outlook. I don't see it as very useful to think that people are locked into a single outlook from the outset and unto eternity--though it's certainly possible in some cases. I expect most of us have a good deal of flexibility possible in our behaviors and outlooks because we can reprogram our brains in lots of ways, which would make discussions of viewpoints highly contextual.
__________________
When speaking of various forms of non-monogamy...it ain't poly if you're just fucking around.

While polyamory, open relationships, and swinging are all distinctly different approaches to non-monogamy, they are not mutually exlusive. Folks can, and some do, engage in more than one of them at a time--and it's all good.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-30-2009, 07:08 PM
AutumnalTone AutumnalTone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro
Posts: 2,186
Default Thread pared

I've pared many messages from the thread that were parts of non-productive tangents. I much prefer to let a discussion run its course naturally, though I will act to keep a discussion on topic and functional if I think it's becoming toxic.

Please, consider your words carefully. Comments that aren't outright ad hominem can stil be insulting and inflammatory.

Also, consider your assumptions carefully. Assuming that somebody else is discussing in poor faith can derail a conversation in short order.
__________________
When speaking of various forms of non-monogamy...it ain't poly if you're just fucking around.

While polyamory, open relationships, and swinging are all distinctly different approaches to non-monogamy, they are not mutually exlusive. Folks can, and some do, engage in more than one of them at a time--and it's all good.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-30-2009, 07:55 PM
Joreth's Avatar
Joreth Joreth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 62
Default

I appreciate the effort and hard work it takes to moderate a discussion forum, especially when things get heated and emotions get riled up. There is often nothing a mod can do that won't piss someone off when they step in to cool things down.

This is why I take the time to explain my opinions on these sorts of procedures, so that the rules can be modified, or the moderators can at least understand what some possible consequences might be during the enacting of said rules. These consequences might be acceptable, but at least they will not be a surprise.

My opposition to the method of editing posts doesn't actually work in my favor here, as the editing makes me look better since no one can go back and pull out those lines that so angered everyone. But, objectively, I see flaws in the method, hence my comments. My words are in print for all to see, including the offensive ones. Unlike certain politicians, I do understand that when it's said on the internet, it's on the record and one can't say "I never said that" when one so clearly did. One can explain and/or apologize, but one can't really hide that it was said in the first place.

I did try to refrain from crying "why me? they did it too!", especially since the initial response I received from Seventh Crow was a private discussion, so maybe I wasn't the only one being talked to, but since it has been brought up publicly, I do feel it is not out of place for me to point out that it appears as though my posts were singled out for editing and deletion when there were other posts with equally strong use of language and apparently high amounts of emotion.

Perhaps I was the only one who didn't see the need to try and censor someone else's words just because I didn't like what was being said. As mentioned previously, the only rule that might have been applicable was rather fuzzy on whether it applied in this situation or not (I maintain that I did not break the ad hominem rule except to point out what an ad hominem was on several occasions to illuminate that I did not, in fact, make an ad hominem attack). As far as I could tell, neither was anyone else breaking that rule, they were just getting upset, so I saw no reason to try and censor anyone else even though I clearly disagreed with several other posts, and some of them were worded just as strongly, if not moreso, than mine.

Breaking in and asking everyone to step away for a few hours was a reasonable approach and first step, and, as everyone can see, the argument immediately ceased. All following posts are regarding the moderating tactics, which the moderators themselves brought up. Since a moderator has stated that editing other people's posts will not be used for now, we can leave that one be.

But, like Ceoli, I would like to know where the line is drawn on which posts will be selected for deletion, since the posts that were deleted were not against any guidelines. Repetitiveness isn't an ad hominem attack, nor was it spam. Several posts were made asking what a person actually said, and some of those posts were immediately after a quote taken from that person. I figured people couldn't see them for some reason or another, and all caps, bolding, and large fonts is considered "yelling". Since we were already repeating ourselves several times, repeating myself in rapid succession didn't seem out of line, and is not addressed in the guidelines one way or another.

There should be some objective way to determine which posts get deleted, so that the moderators do not delete the posts of the people they happen to disagree with while people they agree with use equal or similar language or tactics. I am not saying this was the case here - I have no idea why some posts were deleted & edited while others remain, and that's kind of the point. If I don't know what made some posts eligible and others not, then I can't avoid breaking the guidelines in the future. There should be some method of determining that this post counts as a breach in the guidelines while that post doesn't.

Unless, of course, part of the guidelines include "all rule-breaker decisions are a subjective decision", in which case, it's entirely up to how the moderators feel about someone. This is a valid and legal method, most notably used in certain other online poly communities, but, IMO, encourages "favorites" and not designed to make the larger community feel welcome.

**This was written prior to Seventh Crow's most recent post about "Thread pared" but was not posted then because the thread was locked. I had some points I still wanted to make, so I posted it anyway, even after the "Thread Pared" post. I'm really not a fan of someone else going back and editing/deleting other people's words, thereby changing the nature of the discussion, whether they're my posts or someone else's. Again, spam and useless name-calling I think are reasonable uses of the deletion privilege.

Last edited by Joreth; 11-30-2009 at 08:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-30-2009, 08:34 PM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Perhaps I was the only one who didn't see the need to try and censor someone else's words just because I didn't like what was being said.
I certainly don't see that need. Unfortunately, deleting the posts doesn't change the basic problem that many people started taking things personally and were responding accordingly.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
mono/poly, monogamous

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:14 AM.