Mono wiring vs. poly wiring

[Joreth]

If I say the sky is blue and you say "no it isn't", you don't have to use the words "sky" and "blue" to still be talking about the blueness of the sky, that's what the noun "it" refers to and the conjugated to-be verb "isn't" refers to. Mono didn't have to actually use the phrase "new-agey" to be discussing a book's new-ageyness if he was responding to a comment that directly references a book's new-ageyness.

If, however, I say "the sky is blue" and you say "no it isn't" and I say "you are talking about the blueness of the sky" and you then say "no, I was talking about the greeness of the grass", then you're just plain wrong for responding to a statement you are not actually addressing.

When Seventh Crow said the book is too new-agey and Mono said he didn't think it was, he was, in fact, talking about the new-ageyness of a book without ever using the word "new-agey" personally.

In Mono's later concession, he added "in my opinion any person who is wired monogamously ...". Adding "in my opinion" at the beginning of a statement does not actually change one's statement of fact into an opinion statement and does not make it immune to being incorrect. It could be "my opinion" that all redheads have a bad temper, but that opinion would still be incorrect. A statement of opinion would be "I didn't like the book". A statement of fact would be "caucasion people don't like this book" (an incorrect fact is still a statement of fact). This is a falsifiable statement, the type of which has been addressed in this thread.

In this case, "any person who is wired monogamously" would be the incorrect statement, which Ceoli went to great length to explain why one's "mono wiring" is not related to whether or not one reads a set of text and interprets it as new-agey or not, or why one's "mono wiring" does not make one close-minded or not.

There are plenty of people who are "wired monogamously" according to Mono's definition of "wired" who do not feel threatened by that book, or by poly people in general, or by a partner suggesting polyamory as an option, which suggests that it is not the monogamousness that is responsible for the feeling of threat. Whether one feels threatened or not is a matter of one's security in the relationship, not one's ability to love more than one person at a time. His statement would be more accurate if he said "any person who is insecure..." because that is a direct casual relationship between the "wiring" and the outcome of feeling threatened.

[redpepper]

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG

Nothing to correct And thank you for putting so much time into this.
Take care

Totally agree Mono. Imaginary put a lot of thought into this and came up with something that really makes sense to me. Thank you for that imaginary.

There is one thing missing for me and that is the original thoughts of the OP, which was to talk about oppression. A thread on oppression in regards to poly would be a great idea. Its a very valid topic. Perhaps someone would be interested in talking about it on another thread without quoting someone on this forum? I would love to discuss those thoughts from that perspective personally.

I am suspecting I have been "ignored" at this point. If I start a thread on something would the person who has chosen to ignore me see that thread and be able to respond on it? Or does the whole thread simply not exsist to them? Just a thought.

[NeonKaos]

Originally Posted by redpepper

I am suspecting I have been "ignored" at this point. If I start a thread on something would the person who has chosen to ignore me see that thread and be able to respond on it? Or does the whole thread simply not exsist to them? Just a thought.

Ignoring someone on this forum is not like blocking them on Fakebook. Personally I don't think the Ignore feature does jack-shit when people are quoting each other left and right because you can still see what they say when other people quote it.

My advice to anyone is to use the "Ignore" button inside your brain if you want to ignore someone. There is no rule that one has to read every single message or thread.

[Ceoli]

Ok, I'm going to do my best to address the points raised by ImaginaryIllusion. Given that there as been a ridiculous amount of drama, at this point I seriously doubt anybody really has a clear view of what the actual original point was.

What ImaginaryIllusion is describing is a fallacy of communication, not a fallacy of logic.

So again: The original statement that ImaginaryIllusion pointed out.

SeventhCrow:

Heh. The New Love Without Limits is a book I recommend people avoid because it has far too much New Age fluff crust to truly be useful, in my opinion.

Mono:

Your comments are echoed to me by many poly people I know Seventh Crow. Fasciniating how a mono mind can look at the same words differently. Not that all monos see things my way. Thanks for giving some more ideas for reading

ImaginaryIllusion then takes note of this:

“Not that all monos see things my way.” is there.
“new-ageyness”, nor any variation of those words were used by Mono.
Spirituality, close-mindedness are nowhere in the post...they were added as assumptions about the meaning later…and some other parts of the conversation. But everything stemmed from this post.

Now ImaginaryIllusion goes on to state where he sees the false assumptions.

II:

Note first: “Not that all monos see things my way.” is not there.

No, it is not there because it is not the statement I took issue with. I omitted it on purpose. Not because it disproves the point I was trying to make but because it was irrelevant.

The basic premise of this interpretation is as follows:
Assumption 1: All three sentences form single statement.

Actually no. I am not assuming that they form a single statement. If I was assuming that, I would have included the additional statement that I omitted. In fact there were two statements that were contradicting each other. I was taking issue one of those statements, not the contradiction.

Assumption 2: When speaking of a mono mind, the poster means all mono’s

Actually no. When a person says "Funny how a mono mind can read the same words differently" that person is speaking to the nature of monogamous minds. The only assumption I made here was that the words that were written were the words that were indeed intended. If Mono's intention was to describe the nature of his mono mind, then he should have replaced the word "a" with "my".

Now I did actually ask about that in the original thread that the statement showed up. In the original thread, I replied with this:

Honestly, I don't think it has much to do with a "mono mind" reading it versus a "poly mind". I think it just has to do with whether people like to swallow that kind of writing or not.

I also think there's not that much difference between a mono and poly mind.

Mono replied with this:

I think it has everything to do with wiring. Of course mono minds don't want to swallow open ideas....that is undeniable....we're mono wired...we don't want to open up because we have no need to. "We - don't - want - to". I admit it; it has no appeal to me, no greater sense of learning or mind expanding qualities, no more evolved concept. I don't see it as a world sweeping movement or the next stage of evolution in social dynamics. I merely see it as something that some people want and are capable of.
I see nothing wrong with it. I see only people being themselves.

Some people want to open up thinking they are mono. The mere desire to open up indicates to me that they are mono conditioned and not mono wired.

Now here's the first miscommunication. Mono said, "Of course mono minds don't want to swallow open ideas"

Now, there are two break downs here:

First: Mono said "swallow open ideas". If he was only talking about ideas of of open relationships, then it would have better been communicated by saying "swallow ideas about open relationships". And if that was indeed what he meant to say, then of course I'd have no issue with it since that was the point I was arguing. As it happens, he seemed to be talking about ideas in general, thus implying that mono minds don't like to be open to ideas.

Second: The idea of open relationships hadn't even been mentioned. What was being talked about was how a poly person critiqued that the book in question was too new-agey in flavor, and thus didn't recommend it.

Now, let's break down Mono's reply to the original post again:

Your comments are echoed to me by many poly people I know Seventh Crow.

Since the comments he's referring to are about how Crow perceived a book as too new-agey, it thus implies that many poly people that Mono knows perceive the book the same way.

He then goes on to say:

Fasciniating how a mono mind can look at the same words differently.

This implies that the thing that is driving him to see the book differently is his monogamous wiring. Since the issue in question that was being talked about was the perceived new-ageyness of a book it then follows that what he is perceiving differently is the perceived new ageyness of a book. So therefore, it follows that he was claiming that mono minds perceive the new ageyness of a book differently than poly minds.

Now the last part of the statement that I omitted:

Not that all monos see things my way.

So right now, he has just said (or implied) that mono minds see the same words differently while also saying other mono minds see things differently than him.

Now the actual positions of who was perceiving what in what way got jumbled in the translation. This happened because other people started to inject things about "The Ethical Slut" and whatnot. But whether or not it was the perceived new-ageyness of a book or the price of tea in China really doesn't change the basic problem that I have which is that his statement implied that monogamous minds perceive that has nothing to do with monogamy differently than poly minds. Now if he had clarified that monogamous minds might perceive writings about relationships differently, then I probably wouldn't have had a problem with that statement. However, we weren't talking about relationships, we were talking about the flavor of a book that Mono had recommended in the first place.


ImaginaryIllusion:

Reposting the same thing three times will not change that the interpretation was fallacious.

I have just laid out the reasons why I stand by my interpretation. It came out later in the thread that my interpretation wasn't what Mono had intended to say, but according to the words that were there, there were no assumptions I based my interpretation on. I based them on the logical implications that his statements made, but that is not the same as an assumption.

Now ImaginaryIllusion addresses the next reply I made:

First, my own reply:

But the thing is in this wiring vs. conditioning debate, scientists haven't been able to parcel out where one stops and the other begins, so I suspect it's a combination of both for everyone. But I still don't see how a "mono" mind is going to read a book differently because they're "mono wired". That makes no sense whatsoever.

ImaginaryIllusion then says this:

This is where having a common understanding of exactly what was meant by “Wired” might have been useful.

Mono generally talks about his ‘mono wiring’ frequently. I fully expect he believes there are others like him…where the ‘nature’ part of his mind outweighs the ‘conditioned’ part…with specific regards to monogamy. He generally talks about this mind in the possessive. It’s his mind. Since even if anyone here was a brain surgeon they could not tell us specifically how much was wired or not, then that is his view of his mind. I’d call it part of his worldview. He has a right to that worldview the same as anyone else around here…period, end, stop, without contestation.

I will agree that this is where things derailed because people for some reason thought I was arguing about whether a person can be mono wired or not, when, in fact, that whole thing is irrelevant to my argument. Whether or not monogamy is conditioned or wired or some combination of both, monogamy addresses the part of us that dictates how many people we fall in love with, not how we interpret the written word.

(continued in next post)

[Ceoli]

Somehow, that translated into challenging Mono's world view. Now if that world view is that having monogamous mind means perceiving things that have nothing to do with monogamy differently than a poly mind, then I will most certainly challenge that because that not only speaks to his mind, but it speaks to how other minds perceive things. Which is exactly what Mono did in reply when I said that his reasoning made no sense:

Again, me:

But I still don't see how a "mono" mind is going to read a book differently because they're "mono wired". That makes no sense whatsoever.

Mono's reply:

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

I maintain that whether I am mono or poly wired has nothing to do with how I see a book.

If that world view is that being mono wired means that the concept of loving more than one person just doesn't happen like it may with being poly wired, then no, of course I wouldn't challenge that.

Now after Mono rejoined the thread, he clarified that a mono person would be more threatened by a book about open relationships than a poly person. I argued that point later in the thread that I still don't see that as a mono vs poly wiring. You can refer to the thread for that.


ImaginaryIllusion:

Anytime you say, “He made a logically fallacious and factually incorrect statement”
it could be interpreted as follows: “His worldview is fallacious and factually incorrect”

If there was still confusion about how attacking a statement can be mistaken for a personal attack…there you go.

Unfortunately, this is a grey area. First, if by attack you mean pointing out things you think as wrong with a statement, then I would disagree with that definition. Second, regardless of why it is mistaken as an attack, it doesn't change the fact that it was indeed mistaken. That does not mean that person didn't see it as an attack.

[LovingRadiance]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryIllusion

This is going to be the first of a two part post with regards to the discussion on this and the related threads over the last few days. This one will deal with the discussion surrounding what was said. The other, on the other thread, will deal with how it was said.

The issue of what was said...the source of all the tears, heartache, and acrimony.


That was it…what does it actually say? Read the text. Read the actual words. Take particular note of three things...

“Not that all monos see things my way.” is there.
“new-ageyness”, nor any variation of those words were used by Mono.
Spirituality, close-mindedness are nowhere in the post...they were added as assumptions about the meaning later…and some other parts of the conversation. But everything stemmed from this post.

Because it is so often repeated, I will indulge this again, only because while flawed, it illustrates the interpretation that spawned all this:

Note first: “Not that all monos see things my way.” is not there.

The basic premise of this interpretation is as follows:
Assumption 1: All three sentences form single statement.
Assumption 2: When speaking of a mono mind, the poster means all mono’s
Premise 1: SC said this book is New Agey
Premise 2: Mono says he knows people who say the same. (Intermediate assumption: Mono agrees the book is New Agey)
Premise 3: Mono says that a mono mind sees the words (assumption: He means that book) differently (assumption: by mono mind, he must mean differently than a poly mind)

Intermediate Conclusion:

Premise 4: Mono can’t know what all mono’s think. There are counterpoints that prove the opposite.
Therefore:


Like I said. Basic interpretation. Certainly one way to view it. And since everyone should agree that the intermediate conclusion above would constitute a stereotype, and stereotypes are bad, because it leads to marginalization, then any expression of stereotypes must be taken to task with extreme prejudice.

It’s an understandable interpretation. One that would make some people uncomfortable, especially if they’re passionate about stereotyping, marginalization, etc.

So went the thread on it’s not so merry way.

Reposting the same thing three times will not change that the interpretation was fallacious.
Wait for it...



This is where having a common understanding of exactly what was meant by “Wired” might have been useful.

Mono generally talks about his ‘mono wiring’ frequently. I fully expect he believes there are others like him…where the ‘nature’ part of his mind outweighs the ‘conditioned’ part…with specific regards to monogamy. He generally talks about this mind in the possessive. It’s his mind. Since even if anyone here was a brain surgeon they could not tell us specifically how much was wired or not, then that is his view of his mind. I’d call it part of his worldview. He has a right to that worldview the same as anyone else around here…period, end, stop, without contestation.

Also like anyone else around here, if you challenge a worldview, you are in fact challenging the person. You can say you only object to his ‘statement’ all you want. If you think that statement is about mono minds meaning ‘all mono people’, and he thinks the same words mean ‘his mind’...his ‘worldview’...it can be interpreted as personal. (This will probably segway into pt2 later)

Anytime you say, “He made a logically fallacious and factually incorrect statement”
it could be interpreted as follows: “His worldview is fallacious and factually incorrect”
If there was still confusion about how attacking a statement can be mistaken for a personal attack…there you go.


I’m glad you brought this up. It’s not just slang. It’s entire dialects…vast swathes of the language can take on different meanings, or have meanings implied because they’re commonly understood among people in the same area.

I work on different assumptions. Call it Canuck wiring or something...although it tends to be more geographically localized to the team vice the whole country:
1: If someone makes a generalization about a group of people, it is implied or understood that it doesn’t mean ‘all’. Depending on context, it may be some, many, most…but there’s always exceptions.
2: Most people don’t believe in –isms, or stereotypes anymore. Everyone knows they’ve been made wrong.
3: If someone decides to tell you what’s going through their mind as a part of a larger group to which they themselves belong, it can be presumed to only apply to those with a similar mindset.
4. People with a brain can be reasonably expected to know what conclusions would be drawn by other people who think in a similar way on a given subject.

I’ll return to the original post:


Here’s another interpretation, one that I think I wasn’t alone in, even if not all the assumptions were exactly the same:
Assumption 1: These may be 4 distinct and separate thoughts. One does not necessarily follow from the other.
Assumption 2: When speaking of a mono mind, the poster means His Mind, and by extension, those mono’s with similar minds/thought processes.
Premise 1: SC said this book is New Agey
Premise 2: Mono says he knows people who say the same. Period. (Premise 1 gives context to Premise 2)
Conclusion 1: Mono has poly friends who agree with SC’s opinion about a particular book.
Premise 3: Mono finds it interesting how his mind interprets things differently. (Possibly from his poly friends in premise 2)
Premise 4: “Not that all monos see things my way.” (He knows that not everyone sees things similarly to him)
Therefore:


Conclusion 2: Two different people can read the same words, and have different interpretations.

Wow…I just realised that Mono proved my point here, and the entire demonstration of a saga spanning 6 days, 3 threads, and probably a couple hundred posts by a dozen members…with the very statement that everyone has been arguing over.

Do I have to fall in love with you too? (just kidding) I loved how well you put that together, how clearly and succinctly and it definately resonated precisely with how I was feeling. I won't break it down to respond-becuase it's so perfect all together (and I haven't even read part 2 yet!).

But somewhere in it you said that you suspect others had a similar interpretation to yours about the FIRST post-and mine was exactly what you said. I wish I could have said what I was thinking and feeling and "hearing" in my reading as well as you did.
Thank you.

[LovingRadiance]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryIllusion

Ok…so, which interpretation stands up to the following test:

This should be a clearer version. His mind. His opinion. If it extends to anyone else, it would only be those who think similarly.

Here’s the part you’ve been waiting for…

Let’s back track to the first interpretation, and the first basic assumptions:

Assumption 1: All three sentences form single statement.
Read the text, and particularly the last part of his revised explanation (from post 67 by the way) assumption 1 is false.

Assumption 2: When speaking of a mono mind, the poster means all mono’s
Again, from his revised clarification, assumption 2 is false.

I will only say this once, because can be reread three times or more until it is understood:
The rest of the first interpretation was based on these two false assumptions. If the basic premise or the assumptions they’re based on are false, then so is everything that follows. Therefore the rest of the interpretation that Mono said anything of any sort about “all mono” is itself fallacious.

Perhaps in the future this will serve as a reminder to check your assumptions about what was said, or meant in a post before spending a lot of time and energy arguing over something that wasn’t actually meant. If a key tenant of this environment (a forum) is communication, then we need to communicate.

And there really is no point discussing a fallaciousness of a statement that was never made, particularly where it only serves to cause conflict in the community over something that they all agree on! Stereotyping bad, tree pretty. Let’s move on.

Boiler Plate:
Mono: Apologies if I missed the mark on anything. Feel free to correct me on any items outstanding.
All: I apologize that I couldn’t make this more generic. But I’ve already burned the entire night away (since before the previous post was written) on this digging out posts. I just don’t have the capacity left to remove this from the context of the people involved.

Imaginary-I love you. You are awesome.

My favorite line is this one:

If a key tenant of this environment (a forum) is communication, then we need to communicate.

I tried so hard to figure out how to communicate the thoughts you so succinctly put to words-and failed (obviously).
Thank you for doing a hell of a good job!!!!

[LovingRadiance]

Originally Posted by redpepper

Totally agree Mono. Imaginary put a lot of thought into this and came up with something that really makes sense to me. Thank you for that imaginary.

There is one thing missing for me and that is the original thoughts of the OP, which was to talk about oppression. A thread on oppression in regards to poly would be a great idea. Its a very valid topic. Perhaps someone would be interested in talking about it on another thread without quoting someone on this forum? I would love to discuss those thoughts from that perspective personally.

I am suspecting I have been "ignored" at this point. If I start a thread on something would the person who has chosen to ignore me see that thread and be able to respond on it? Or does the whole thread simply not exsist to them? Just a thought.

I'm reading you... What about oppression and poly would you like to talk about m'dear?

I'm so stoked about reading Imaginary's posts I almost want to copy them to my computer to reread tonight!

[Ceoli]

Editing note: I just chopped this off of the bottom of my previous post and turned it into a new post because I feel the points addressed here to be rather important and don't want them to get lost at the bottom of a long post.


Now ImaginaryIllusion goes on to address the larger issues with the differing underlying assumptions:

1: If someone makes a generalization about a group of people, it is implied or understood that it doesn’t mean ‘all’. Depending on context, it may be some, many, most…but there’s always exceptions.

This is a common misconception about generalizations. When generalizations are made about a group, while "not meaning all" may be implied, it is rarely understood by the people who are subject to that generalization. And even if it doesn't mean all, it is still a generalization and more often than not, generalizations are a tool of prejudice. This is an issue that comes up quite a bit in race and class problems. Now it is true that Mono was generalizing the group that he is a member of, but the effect is the same. When you make a generalization like "Women don't do well in authority", do you honestly think that women hear that thinking "of course they don't mean all of us women, so I have no problem with that"?

I could go further into how being in a position of privilege allows such perceptions around generalizations, but honestly I do a whole weekend training on how to recognize such privilege and how it works in society.

2: Most people don’t believe in –isms, or stereotypes anymore. Everyone knows they’ve been made wrong.

This is definitely not true. -Isms and stereotypes are alive and well in western societies. They may not be as obvious as the stereotypes our societies have held in the past, but they are still there and still inform a great deal of opinions around things. All you have to do is look at what the women who ran for president in the last election faced to see that they are still here.

Now Canada may have a different history and such -isms and stereotypes may manifest in Canadian society in different ways, but I'd be willing to be that they are still there. Given that it's probably hard to be openly poly without paying a big social cost, that would suggest that there are still some -isms and stereotypes about poly people.

3: If someone decides to tell you what’s going through their mind as a part of a larger group to which they themselves belong, it can be presumed to only apply to those with a similar mindset.

This is a bit of dangerous ground to tread on. I am a woman. What goes through my mind about a relationship with a man can be incredibly different than what goes through another woman's mind about a relationship with a man. That type of claim is what generally leads statements like "Women can only have sex if there is romantic attachment." or "Women only want to find a guy to marry".

Now if the group you're referring to is something like "World of Warcraft fans" you might be able to say something like just like other World of Warcraft fans, I like fantasy RPG's on the computer. But that's probably about as far as you can go. Similarly, if I'm polyamorous, just about the only thing I could speak for on behalf of all poly people is that we fall in love with more than one person at a time. I can't even speak to *how* all poly people fall in love, even though I'm a poly person who has fallen in love. The same goes for monogamous people. If I'm mono, the only experience I definitely share with other mono people is that I fall in love with only one person at a time. *How* that manifests from one mono person to another is incredibly varied.

So what goes through one person's mind can only apply to the larger group identity they share in a VERY limited way. (and this doesn't even get into how each of these identities interweaves and overlaps with other aspects of identity, adding even more variation- gay, straight, male, female, rich, poor, white, hispanic, etc....)

4. People with a brain can be reasonably expected to know what conclusions would be drawn by other people who think in a similar way on a given subject

.

Again, rather dangerous ground there. Again, if you mean that mono people can conclude that other mono people love one person at a time, then yeah. But a mono person cannot speak to how mono people see other poly people, or how mono people may or may lot like a book about polyamory.

Now this is where intersections of identities can confuse matters. It just so happens that most mono people identify in a sort of mainstream culture. So as members of that mainstream, they could speak to how other members of that mainstream culture perceive things (though many would argue that), but it is the mainstream culture that is the common identity in that case, not the monogamy, even though many people will assume them to be synonymous.

ImaginaryIllusion is claiming that I made false assumptions based upon what Mono wrote. My assumptions were only to take that the words written in the posts meant what those words mean. It seems that much of the context got lost in the subsequent conflict, but I still stand by my initial issue and why I posted it.


I've just spent a long time on the first post of this. When I have time, I'll go on to address the second post.

[redpepper]

Can you imagine how long he took to wade through all that LR? Amazing!

Start a thread if you like m'dear... We could see where it goes. this one feels like sucking on a bunch of sour lemons to me. Perhaps a new one would revitalize the topic. I will even allow you to use my name in the title! Just to stay with the theme and in an attempt to create some humour about it.

Names anyone?