I was talking with some colleagues this morning about recognizing and resolving misunderstandings and [other] conflicts. I mentioned a few different perspectives and processes that I've used, and sent along some references. I've blogged about two of them before: the four agreements and love and logic. I was surprised to discover I'd never blogged about a third process, nor could I discover any other references for it on the web. It is the clearing process I learned as part of the Mankind Project.
The core of the process is distinguishing between data, judgments, feelings and wants, and recognizing that each person is simply a mirror for me (and I am simply a mirror for others). When I feel a "charge" about something that someone has said (or not said) or done (or not done), I can clear that charge by recognizing, articulating and processing four dimensions of the energy I'm feeling about the [in]action:
- Data: what are the observable facts involved in the situation: things that have been said or done (or not said or not done), by me or the other person(s)?
- Judgments: what inferences do I draw from those data, e.g., how do I judge the other(s), and/or how do I judge that he/she/they judge me?
- Feelings: how do I feel about those judgments and data, i.e., glad, sad, mad or afraid?
- Wants: given these feelings, judgments and data, what is it I really want (for myself)?
Learning how to distinguish effectively between data and judgments is a challenging (and ongoing) process. I often think of negative judgments such as "you don't respect me" or "you don't take me seriously" as data, but increasingly recognize them as judgments. Getting clear about the actual feelings is also challenging, as the surface level anger I sometimes feel is often a mask for fear. Early on, my wants often revolved around what I wanted from another person (e.g., "I want you to love me") and it is only with persistent practice that I can better realize the value of focusing on wants for myself ("I want to love myself … regardless of whether I judge that anyone else loves me").
I've omitted a step from the list above, in which I may reflect on how the charge I feel is really about me (radical personal responsibility), and [when appropriate] to go back to the first time I felt the feelings and judgments that are creating the charge. This often occurs between the feelings and wants steps, but I can't think of a good one-word description for this step. It typically results in yet another example of "lessons are repeated as often as necessary".
The framework is powerful, and I've often applied it outside of MKP contexts. I was surprised that googling for "data judgments feelings wants" did not turn up anything I recognized as relevant to MKP (and hope that I'm not violating some principle in revealing the process here). However, the search turned up some interesting items, e.g.,
The Four Preferences: Do we rely on our five senses and want concrete, practical data to work with? … Most decisions involve some Thinking and some Feeling. …
ISTJ Personal Growth: An ISTJ's feeling of success depends upon being able to use their … Their hyper-vigilant judgments about the rationality and competence of others may be a …
As I've noted before, I'm an ENFP … and although I haven't noted it before, my wife, Amy, is an ISTJ, and so this google-based serendipitous discovery of potential differences in perspectives regarding judgments, feelings and wants is rather illuminating (in my judgment).
Comments
6 responses to “Data, Judgments, Feelings and Wants: A Path toward Clarity”
been looking at these also and find that it is very similar to non-violent communication
Thanks, Phil – after reviewing the Wikpedia entry for non-violent communication, I share your judgement that these are very similar practices. For [local] reference, here’s what Wikipedia has to say:
Hey Phil, could you send me a link where I can take a personality assessment?
Please email me back at eunos.laverdure@inbox.com
Thx
Terry
Terry: there are lots of variations of online personality assessments. Here’s a link to the Keisey Temperament Sorter, which is the one I took:
http://www.keirsey.com/
I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that the processes used by MKP were not to be shared with the uninitiated and were the IP of MKP. I’m newly initiated so there is plenty of room for me being wrong, but that’s what I read in the manuals I have.
Interestingly I was googling the same thing and got your post, because I’ve used a similar process taught to me by a marriage counselor several years ago.
Aaron: thanks for raising this issue – it represents an edge that I work and play with from time to time.
In my judgment, one of the goals of MKP is for men to integrate and share our insights and experiences with those outside of the circles. My understanding of our confidentiality agreements is that we want to avoid diminishing the power of the New Warrior Training Adventure (NWTA) for any man, as part of that power derives from the unexpected nature of some of the activities. I’m not aware of any intellectual property constraints, and in fact, never thought of that dimension before. But if MKP does want men to share the wealth of our insights and experiences through our training and participation in the organization, then I would tend to err on the side of openness, except where to do so would violate confidentiality agreements, regarding the NWTA itself, or any thoughts, judgments, feelings or wants shared by any individual man in the context of any MKP circle
FWIW, when I attended an Integration Group (I-Group) regularly, we often invited uninitiated men to join us, and we were judicious in not discussing or practicing any of the NWTA processes that might violate our confidentiality agreement. We regularly practiced clearings in the presence of non-initiated men, and I know other men often reported their successful practice of these steps outside of the I-Group setting. I judge that sharing these steps on the blog is not a violation of confidentiality.