Previously, on my article "Milestones for Transforming me from Phase 2 to Phase 3" , I discussed the three phases, which I am going to repeat them again in here:
Phase 1: Memorizing things in school
Phase 2: Being an expert on a technical skill
Phase 3: Having respect on Knowledge
Phase 2: Being an expert on a technical skill
Phase 3: Having respect on Knowledge
Most people are stuck on Phase 2, and this is arguable more expressed as the main topic of argument within the book "The Executive's Paradox" by David G. Jensen. This book is a very nice for anyone to look thoroughly, as it stems most of the research from neurology, and so far, after reading the first few chapters, ties together what has been discussed in here and with mental symmetry theory the same concepts, just worded in a different way with more visual applications that can be applied in real life. Its a book that integrates different theories rather than placing dichotomies about it.
In summary, the main diagram the author illustrates is the Contributor model in detail view. (Suggest you read his article and diagram on his blog by clicking here) He splits the two sets of cognitive actions of the contributor (=executive) that mainly interacts with: people and tasks. Its a separation that I never looked at it as before, and illustrates the main source of the problem executives snap instead of stretch:
According to the stretching line:
People Line or Mercy Line: I can imagine that commanding personality expresses the mercy identity by server actions (as what I do, will reflect of who I am. My action, is a mercy experience, which becomes an input of what I represent or believe is right) while empowering personality formulate the mercy mental networks (=people) that got inputted as mercy experiences by perceiver mode.
Task Line or Teacher Line: Tasks become teacher mental networks from the input building blocks of the rational personality in perceiver mode. Teacher mode (which is hidden from contributor mode) formulates a theory out of those building blocks, and then the visionary personality has access of that theory as it is active in server mode that contains the vision of that theory like a milestone recipe. So tasks become from a low level view (facts) to a high level view (The estimated product , not actual, if the recipe is followed).
How can this paradox exist? Have you seen that the same line (which a line here is interpreted a cognitive module getting affected, either mercy or teacher) is accessed by different cognitive modules doing a completely separate thing? Let us recap that perceiver has visibility of the mercy room and server has visibility of the teacher mode. What is really going on?
-Although perceiver mode formulates mental network building blocks out of mercy input, it has no control of the mercy input it receives, as server mode is the one that has the power to what mercy input it wants to express (empowering vs. commanding)
According to the stretching line:
People Line or Mercy Line: I can imagine that commanding personality expresses the mercy identity by server actions (as what I do, will reflect of who I am. My action, is a mercy experience, which becomes an input of what I represent or believe is right) while empowering personality formulate the mercy mental networks (=people) that got inputted as mercy experiences by perceiver mode.
Task Line or Teacher Line: Tasks become teacher mental networks from the input building blocks of the rational personality in perceiver mode. Teacher mode (which is hidden from contributor mode) formulates a theory out of those building blocks, and then the visionary personality has access of that theory as it is active in server mode that contains the vision of that theory like a milestone recipe. So tasks become from a low level view (facts) to a high level view (The estimated product , not actual, if the recipe is followed).
How can this paradox exist? Have you seen that the same line (which a line here is interpreted a cognitive module getting affected, either mercy or teacher) is accessed by different cognitive modules doing a completely separate thing? Let us recap that perceiver has visibility of the mercy room and server has visibility of the teacher mode. What is really going on?
-Although perceiver mode formulates mental network building blocks out of mercy input, it has no control of the mercy input it receives, as server mode is the one that has the power to what mercy input it wants to express (empowering vs. commanding)
-Although server mode has a vision of a theory like a milestone recipe from the teacher mode, it loses visibility of the abstractions behind how the Perceiver created those building blocks as an input in teacher mode to formulate that theory (rational vs. visionary)
So the mercy network is something that the Perceiver completely sees, yet cannot control the input of what it gets. All these years, the server mode feed me with all that garbage? And yes, that is one of the thing that a Perceiver mode will not collaborate with the Server mode to discuss what input the mercy experiences it should get.
So the teacher network is something that the Server completely sees and make things stable in his life because he has a plan or recipe that can follow through. But when the plan fails, they are completely lost as it has no idea how that abstraction was formulated. Drats, where is the source code behind the theory of all this? Server mode would have never take some time to look at the perceiver mode what building blocks it built and why.
The server mode thinks whatever the teacher mode has is what the teacher mode has produced, but little did it know that it gets the input from perceiver mode.
The perceiver mode thinks whatever the mercy mode has is what the mercy mode has produced, but little did it know that it gets the input from server mode.
Why? Because there is no visibility as seen in the bellow picture
In mental symmetry, it has been discussed that some executives have control of perceiver mode in a healthy dose while server mode not in a healthy dose, which translates that they may be empowering rational but lack the rest. This can go vice-versa. In any case, looking back at history, executives that were most successful had both of those cognitive modes active. They could ride the car and solve problems. But if you read the book of David G. Jensen, that is not enough in these days due to the increasing complexity and demands of these days we are living in this world. You cannot use server mode at one time and perceiver mode at another time by pulling yourself in one mode at a time while ignoring the other mode. Executives have to be more effective and efficient these days. In these days, you have to collaborate with the perceiver and server mode in your mind and set some rules together, where these two types of modes can work together at the same time in the nice metaphorical word called "stretching". When, for instance, in the case you have to be commanding/visionary, which is a server mode, you have to stretch the perceiver mode to compliment the empowering/rational traits in the sense of "Hey, perceiver mode, how did you create this vision out of" or "Hey, perceiver mode, you think my action is a negative input for what you have gathered so far?". In the terms of stretch, perceiver mode does not really need to be fully functional ,but it needs to stretch, although painful for that cognitive module to bear something that is not its forte, to yelp out a voice whether the server mode follows a misinterpreted vision or inputs from the perceiver mode that are already known that it yields no positive results with high confidence should not be repeated again.
As a side note, I guess the most visible trait in contributor seen in samples through our life may be the trait of being commanding as it is very easy to get. First, cause it is the server mode, its applicable to real life, not perceiver mode, which can only be refined by education and self reflection of things you experience and see on yourself. Second of all, its only technical or specialist knowledge, something that is very popular and easy these days to be a specialist in these days of age. Truth to be told, being visionary and empowering is very hard these days as that needs you to be a top level view of things instead of a bottom level view of things. That means you have to do a cross cultural disciplinary study of many different specialized fields. In addition, empowering and rational require you to have an abstract view of life instead of a concrete view of life (perceiver mode works in abstract mode while server mode works in concrete mode). Perceiver mode is becoming more prevelant these days with data science and on, but in the traditional days, this was not so apparent. If we look at the correct path these modes should work, they should be (but they can give feedback back and forth):
Researching General Knowledge -> Practicing General Knowldge -> Researching Technical Knowledge -> Practicing Technical Knowledge
Or to label it based on the executive's paradox model (Where Ci=Perceiver Cp=Server G.K. = General Knowledge T.K. = Technical Knowledge):
So the mercy network is something that the Perceiver completely sees, yet cannot control the input of what it gets. All these years, the server mode feed me with all that garbage? And yes, that is one of the thing that a Perceiver mode will not collaborate with the Server mode to discuss what input the mercy experiences it should get.
So the teacher network is something that the Server completely sees and make things stable in his life because he has a plan or recipe that can follow through. But when the plan fails, they are completely lost as it has no idea how that abstraction was formulated. Drats, where is the source code behind the theory of all this? Server mode would have never take some time to look at the perceiver mode what building blocks it built and why.
The server mode thinks whatever the teacher mode has is what the teacher mode has produced, but little did it know that it gets the input from perceiver mode.
The perceiver mode thinks whatever the mercy mode has is what the mercy mode has produced, but little did it know that it gets the input from server mode.
Why? Because there is no visibility as seen in the bellow picture
In mental symmetry, it has been discussed that some executives have control of perceiver mode in a healthy dose while server mode not in a healthy dose, which translates that they may be empowering rational but lack the rest. This can go vice-versa. In any case, looking back at history, executives that were most successful had both of those cognitive modes active. They could ride the car and solve problems. But if you read the book of David G. Jensen, that is not enough in these days due to the increasing complexity and demands of these days we are living in this world. You cannot use server mode at one time and perceiver mode at another time by pulling yourself in one mode at a time while ignoring the other mode. Executives have to be more effective and efficient these days. In these days, you have to collaborate with the perceiver and server mode in your mind and set some rules together, where these two types of modes can work together at the same time in the nice metaphorical word called "stretching". When, for instance, in the case you have to be commanding/visionary, which is a server mode, you have to stretch the perceiver mode to compliment the empowering/rational traits in the sense of "Hey, perceiver mode, how did you create this vision out of" or "Hey, perceiver mode, you think my action is a negative input for what you have gathered so far?". In the terms of stretch, perceiver mode does not really need to be fully functional ,but it needs to stretch, although painful for that cognitive module to bear something that is not its forte, to yelp out a voice whether the server mode follows a misinterpreted vision or inputs from the perceiver mode that are already known that it yields no positive results with high confidence should not be repeated again.
As a side note, I guess the most visible trait in contributor seen in samples through our life may be the trait of being commanding as it is very easy to get. First, cause it is the server mode, its applicable to real life, not perceiver mode, which can only be refined by education and self reflection of things you experience and see on yourself. Second of all, its only technical or specialist knowledge, something that is very popular and easy these days to be a specialist in these days of age. Truth to be told, being visionary and empowering is very hard these days as that needs you to be a top level view of things instead of a bottom level view of things. That means you have to do a cross cultural disciplinary study of many different specialized fields. In addition, empowering and rational require you to have an abstract view of life instead of a concrete view of life (perceiver mode works in abstract mode while server mode works in concrete mode). Perceiver mode is becoming more prevelant these days with data science and on, but in the traditional days, this was not so apparent. If we look at the correct path these modes should work, they should be (but they can give feedback back and forth):
Researching General Knowledge -> Practicing General Knowldge -> Researching Technical Knowledge -> Practicing Technical Knowledge
Or to label it based on the executive's paradox model (Where Ci=Perceiver Cp=Server G.K. = General Knowledge T.K. = Technical Knowledge):
EMPOWERING (Ci G.K. Mercy Line) -> VISIONARY (Cp G.K. Teacher Line) -> RATIONAL (Ci T.K. Teacher Line) -> COMMANDING (Cp T.K. Mercy Line)
So we start with the mercy line, where in EMPOWERING, perceiver mode creates not any building blocks, but building blocks that have basic foundations that serve ethically. Then, it goes to the teacher line, where the VISIONARY creates building blocks to the point of the server being able to see the vision of it in a form of recipe. Then, while still being in the teacher line, the RATIONAL uses the perceiver mode to evaluate on how to apply that general knowledge to the rubber of the road by researching technical knowledge. Finally, that technical knowledge is enforced by the COMMANDING personality, which is integrated to our identity within the Mercy Line. What this article so far in the first chapters misses to express (as I haven't finished reading the book) is the order of how these 4 different styles should operate. Because of all things, here it ignores this type of line, the dichotomy of teacher and mercy.
So we start with the mercy line, where in EMPOWERING, perceiver mode creates not any building blocks, but building blocks that have basic foundations that serve ethically. Then, it goes to the teacher line, where the VISIONARY creates building blocks to the point of the server being able to see the vision of it in a form of recipe. Then, while still being in the teacher line, the RATIONAL uses the perceiver mode to evaluate on how to apply that general knowledge to the rubber of the road by researching technical knowledge. Finally, that technical knowledge is enforced by the COMMANDING personality, which is integrated to our identity within the Mercy Line. What this article so far in the first chapters misses to express (as I haven't finished reading the book) is the order of how these 4 different styles should operate. Because of all things, here it ignores this type of line, the dichotomy of teacher and mercy.
And this dichotomy is something that people ignore and is one very sensitive topic people really do not want to talk about because mercy represents me. This blog had devoted a lot of sections on that topic. But because this problem, fixing externalizations, has not become a demanding issue to the public yet due to still the world being in a resourceful place, and add to the fact that this is a sensitive topic, it will not be a thing that be addressed until the issue becomes more prevalent itself. As you can see, contributor mode worked fine in the past even if it was not effective/efficient pulling itself on one cognitive mode at certain times, but now it becomes an issue where demands push it to become its cognitive mindset more effective than before.
Without further ado, here is the diagram I want to represent with other terminology that I have taken input from Lorin Friesen's research to express the same executive paradox diagram in different contexts:
Empowering: Perceiver mode that looks at general knowledge in mercy mode. Looks at how "me" can be a better "me" based on facts and theories collected that bring most of the time (contrary to individualistic experiences) positive mercy experiences (Outputs mercy life).
Rational: Perceiver mode that looks at technical knowledge in teacher mode. Builds building blocks from observations that can be stacked up later on as a foundation to be used. (Inputs blocks for teacher mode).
Visionary: Server mode that looks at general knowledge in teacher mode. Looks at how the abstract recipe can meet to the current situation (Outputs teacher life).
Commanding: Server mode that looks at technical knowledge in mercy mode. The actions of the server represent as an input of what "I" believe and what "I" am (Inputs blocks for mercy mode).
I hope that this diagram will help on understanding what has been discussed so far. Now, if the order of those styles are executed on a certain order as discussed, Teacher Line and Mercy Line will be more closer together overlapping to each other and creating both a straight line instead of crossing each other and creating a symbol of "X". This is where the technical knowledge ("the science of today") and general knowledge ("religions that do not have any science") take different paths and do not collaborate or integrate together.
This is too deep, but this is just an experimental conclusion I am pointing out on all of my references and research and explorations I have done so far on my free time. This is quite an interesting subject and it looks good that there are new faces that look things on a fresh perspective by looking all sides of a view instead of just their personal experience.
Closing arguments of this article, I am trying to expand this theory to more applications, this can be pointed out more obviously on what the end of the chapter 2 of his book says:
"A theory is the more impressive...
the more different the kinds of things it relates
and the more extended the range of its applicability"
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Without further ado, here is the diagram I want to represent with other terminology that I have taken input from Lorin Friesen's research to express the same executive paradox diagram in different contexts:
Empowering: Perceiver mode that looks at general knowledge in mercy mode. Looks at how "me" can be a better "me" based on facts and theories collected that bring most of the time (contrary to individualistic experiences) positive mercy experiences (Outputs mercy life).
Rational: Perceiver mode that looks at technical knowledge in teacher mode. Builds building blocks from observations that can be stacked up later on as a foundation to be used. (Inputs blocks for teacher mode).
Visionary: Server mode that looks at general knowledge in teacher mode. Looks at how the abstract recipe can meet to the current situation (Outputs teacher life).
Commanding: Server mode that looks at technical knowledge in mercy mode. The actions of the server represent as an input of what "I" believe and what "I" am (Inputs blocks for mercy mode).
I hope that this diagram will help on understanding what has been discussed so far. Now, if the order of those styles are executed on a certain order as discussed, Teacher Line and Mercy Line will be more closer together overlapping to each other and creating both a straight line instead of crossing each other and creating a symbol of "X". This is where the technical knowledge ("the science of today") and general knowledge ("religions that do not have any science") take different paths and do not collaborate or integrate together.
This is too deep, but this is just an experimental conclusion I am pointing out on all of my references and research and explorations I have done so far on my free time. This is quite an interesting subject and it looks good that there are new faces that look things on a fresh perspective by looking all sides of a view instead of just their personal experience.
Closing arguments of this article, I am trying to expand this theory to more applications, this can be pointed out more obviously on what the end of the chapter 2 of his book says:
"A theory is the more impressive...
the more different the kinds of things it relates
and the more extended the range of its applicability"
ALBERT EINSTEIN