the letterbox protocol

Just spoke to Sofia regarding Chris. Chris is the guy who funded me to live in london in summer 2007. He's a genius, however his social interaction with people is so bad it's scary. Which means, his genius is not being correctly and usefully influencing the current world flows as much as it should. Sofia was burned by him, and she's super patient and tried for years. My solution has been heard but has not been acted on. It's a sore point, because there is danger that she will enter into engagement with him, and this will lead to the same dynamics as before.

With this in mind, Sofia suggested we talk about the problem using the Letterbox Protocol. From Confluence Consultancy:

"Having done this with my brother and with Sofia to my benefit and theirs, it is something I would like to encourage especially with people who are ahead of themselves. The protocol consists of changing how we speak in a simple way, specifically, each person says one sentence only.

"The intention at the end of the sentence is to invite the other to continue. This is the default state. A person is not allowed to continue unless the other comprehends, is following, is ready, and enables one to say the next sentence.

"The practice of this means that speaking is divorced from the speaker. Because we are sophisticated and we know about multiple perspectives, we tend to fall into the trap of our real-time truth that we have different perspectives. The objective is to acknowledge and practice the truth that we are talking at a deeper level than perspective. Hence, it does not matter who actually is talking. The emphasis is not on will, on grabbing attention, on being entertaining, nor sparkling with some wit, or bringing to bear some fact, etc. It is based on simple sharing. Also, little feedback loops like, dis/agreement, are jettisoned in the same way individually they are jettisoned for the sake of individual personal fluency. Also consider bids to say more than one statement which requires consensus again.

"This is relatively easy with two people, and requires greater practice with more than two. If people become practiced at this, then there is a chance that the speed might increase, where a collective of ten speak as if they are one."

It worked! We also included a time limit of 20 mins. Good engagement. Although a tricky subject, the protocol prevents a collapse into standard behaviours and social dynamics. Sofia and I talked about this tricky subject well, and we both felt good at the end of it, even though there is a confrontation right at the heart of it. Tav automated the process for Twitter, but his server is not up and running at the mo. However, even when it does, what people need is the real-world experience of it before it is transposed into the virtual world.

A similar dynamic happened when Dougald located various disorders of communication in me, and when I asked for engagement in a polite way, we effected something like the Letterbox Protocol. He is very eloquent, and produced some excellent and accurate descriptions as well as demonstrating lightness of attention. This has a tendency to run on, which makes listening and addressing specific points tricky. I believe by introducing the invitational ethic after every sentence, I do believe he will absolutely shine.

This is a protocol to improve listening, and thereby following, and thereby the emergence of appropriate leadership, that is, to truth. It helps us confront what needs to be confronted, well. It's a buddhist protocol, I think.