I’m working on my problem definition piece but ran across this good summary.
I’ve always liked Heifetz and Linsky’s work.
They were helpful in popularizing the distinction between technical and adaptive work / problems maybe 20 years ago.
They are a solid on ramp to complex adaptive problem work. (late St. 2 / St. 3 ish)
The framework / set of heuristics below are to be applied to adaptive problems (not technical). I see in all of it a complex weave of Tier 1 value basins. Heavy on FS-Green, but at the core of an adaptive challenge is the necessity to emerge solutions and create and maintain tensions. You, the leader, cannot “solve” the problem. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand anything about adaptive problems.
Their punchline: working on adaptive problems is bruising / difficult work. You better approach it in a fantastically different way otherwise you will get wiped out. Here are the ways a leader needs to approach these kinds of problems.
“I just received the following note from one of our Inner Circle members. Below the note is my response.”
I’m also finding it useful to become more aware of what the Black disfranchisement, disqualification and exclusion are. There is a lot of misdiagnosis going on, a lot of minority being experienced as oppressed minority, a lot of systemic poverty experienced as systemic racism. But if I was told I’m about to be born in the US (or Canada) and have the choice of being born Black or White, I’d sure go for White.
For me this may be the wrong argument.
Would you choose to be poor white? Hispanic, Asian, Rohinga?
There is no choice about this, it’s ground into life and bounded rationality is never true.
How about black in Africa or black in America?
We can enter these circular references until the cows come home or to continue to manage the equality and equity better…why limit it to race?
I think the current and past social policy have not been as efficacious as they could be.
Our current social scientists are failing us in this as other things…but it is a social experiment.
Race has become a political pawn.
What about any color with IQ 135, or White with IQ 93?
If they can keep ACB out of the Supreme Court by calling her racist, they are and will…
The real challenge in our country is stopping or countering—not racism—but this vile identity progressivism.
It’s a much more serious problem one…if they keep it up, one that will make racism look pale in comparison, IMHO.
One thing that’s seems to slip by but could be seen in the intersections between Jim and I are people that learn through confrontation.
The minute I watched reminded me of that axiom that part of the continuum of CP-RED and ER-ORANGE “agency” where confrontation has a very broad use from surprisal all the way to pushing people to push you.
A lot of the power continuum (and something just popped)…
As I said that…
Another voice inside said, dump SGD, there is not enough that’s original anymore that you can keep vs starting back with PAAA, adding kinship and survival as graves did because there wasn’t any primary research on that only conjecture that almost all of which doesn’t work.
Now what’s even more interesting is how insights occur…in that 15 microseconds where that insight popped, the entire complex that I wrote emerged as a whole idea that took me several minutes to describe…amazing how our brains work!
For two decades I’ve been trying to make sense of how to update SGD when it fact, I just realized that all the efforts while important for affiliation, are putting me in the position to disclaim more and more of the model.
That means a further unraveling which Alicia’s post triggered when it’s really more important to consider the underlying continuum.
[Douglas Murray just appeared on Tucker to discuss the newest outrage on the use of “sexual preference” which as you can imagine for me is pretty far from the source;)]
Back to Alicia’s note, instead of confusing people with CP-RED, and the fact that it’s considered mainstream as a pejorative position in that world…
Perhaps the best thing would be to just retire my use of the model and point to it if needed but to obsolete it and move on….
Jim recent piece is worth reading several times because it makes a lot of sense and is coherent an argument I’ve read on the topic.
While this one is the most salient, I continue to be “(arrested) in several ways at GT-Emergence.
I don’t fully embrace prerequisites, that’s a sticking point and another is that it takes work to get into GT-Y (Jim suggests a long period of time)…
And while I’m arrested, something is saying to me, that’s not what’s occurring, although he’s partly right if you going to adopt the KSE path that for me is the basis for Fischer/Lectica…that you can achieve skills that cause you to be a more vertically-able reasoner.
For me, it’s partly true…somewhat, and like Jim who—I think—works out of prerequisites, which is also partly true and probably true to some extent, I’m still arrested because I don’t believe the KSE PATH (KSEP) + prequisites is enough; necessary perhaps, but not sufficient.
I differ with Jim in that I do believe you’re born into a “dispensation”…
A proclivity where you become what you are rather than construct the path consciously…the dispensation constructs you.
Now this brings about issues for sure and almost exposes the nature of requisite…GT-Y.
What jammed me up about a decade ago was this notion that SGD puts forward that the next evolution of the mature adult personality will be GT-YELLOW, GRAVES A’N’. (1981)
Jim’s perspective seems to emerge from that and it’s arrested in SGD in my view because when you deconstruct the theory you realize that these DCABs have formed long long ago as cores which may not at all be populated but have certain ways of Being, Doing, Having, Becoming, Contributing and Protexting that relationship to a set of life conditions that may, in fact, have been attracted to the DCAB through time, even in small, unrecognisable amounts, but nonetheless existent…always there, like the problems we can identify once we can see them—they were always there, waiting for D&F to reach them?
So they have always been there?
If they have, what are their attributes, characteristics, forms, structure, artefacts and most importantly values?
Just because we don’t know them…
Doesn’t mean they haven’t known us and become attractive?
Graves used conceptual space as a generator; as he did “dogma” relativity and others.
His theory of everything leaves inborness with too little D&F, and while in a pure linear development it might work, it really hasn’t.
We find that largely that we are fitting reality to the model…as I feel Jim and I are (ssted).
In my arrested state, if nothing we know is mostly true, then what is?
Are there prerequisites for, let’s say DQ-BLUE?
Is it necessary to develop along a KSEP to reach the D&F that makes sense?
I’m working in that space…of OR.
PS: I was triggered to gather these thoughts because I wanted to pass you this…
In this piece I noticed something…aside from CP-RED sophistication. I don’t know when it was recorded.
“ This is useful. Might be an interesting exercise to spread the motive structures across the 4 to dimensionalize a more 4-D version of each. Or give a sense of how one starts moving toward greater and greater densities/frequencies.”
If you’re “in” the wing, then the wing’s pattern is brightened and active
…and for motive energy it appears to be a similar idea because ANY FOCUS of energy would block energy and information which makes a person like a Jim/Mike with a high energy profile (TRUMP) seemingly activated in a number of conflicting patterns.
I seem to remember telling Jim (as he seemed to remember) that the key to more complex work was down not up.
Everything about Jim and Mike and possibly TRUMP (although Trump is high status and J/M are not) says that:
DQ–BLUE has little if anything to do with J/M/T Motive profiles as we all are NOW people = EXPEDIENCE,
Low saving (>risk, high risk with LT)
Low order (novelty) Trump may have order)
The opposite of DQ–BLUE:
That would be the core while there of course are 1000s of variations but without those “big 3” you won’t remain with D&F in DQ Blue and with conscientiousness whose need emerges you’re success is dissipating energy poured into other pursuits because the “devil is in the details”
Bezos seems to be a GT-Y candidate and all the while/years he was being harpooned he did and said things that showed recursion and scale which can emerge from doing simple things without glitches seems to allow Amazon to scale dramatically without major hiccups which feeds the engine tge feeds the politics that “protects” the system’s scalablility, approachability, credibility and likesbility much as a WalMart.
What perplexes complexity is variability—Demings great statistical gift of QUALITY and its relationship to QUANTITY, or Density & Frequency.
ARE Gates, Buffett, Bezos, Ellison, Musk, etc. All GT-Y candidates?
I don’t know but you won’t find much entropy at DQ–BLUE in those systems.
The issue for me is clearly realising that order, honor, tranquility doesn’t mean the DCAB @DQ-B is the ONLY place people will be entering, AT, or exiting—REMEMBER: in terms of DYNAMIC D&F not development per Se, you don’t develop values, values develop you and that very process may shift your perspective at various VOL/T conditions.
That’s the paradox that few are going to be able to hold object IMHO, that you can be in multiple places at once—parapositional paradynamics.
SGD says that DQ-B emerged (with guilt being added to the neurology in order to contain the pugnacity of man…
Wilde(?) said civilisation is a thin veneer surrounding chaos (my words;)
DQ-B on the one hand is NOT a thin system! DQ-B like a forest must be rooted deeply so that what happens on that surface (veneer) doesn’t doom the future of the forest.
Just because you want law and order doesn’t mean you’re DQ-B!
Youth tends when not encounced in DQ-B to assume its tradition and this not necessary.
Education is being cleansed of tradition and when tradition is there it’s twisted negatively so we have all these RK ideas about, why we can’t all just get along—the pugnacity of humans is not so easily set aside or controlled!
Before this is realized, there again, are going to be a lot of dead people, just like we are seeing because of the narrow-plot-agenda-lockdown, collateral damage is being hidden from view and poverty is doubling globally as we speak and people are dropping like flies.
Now a lockdown appears to be DQ-B, but DQ-B has benefited most from the lockdown, even as willing participants, go figure.
The lockdown is an FS-GREEN phenomenon-plot globally and of all the people you would think would be strong enough to say not on my watch…because they threatened his re-election—he fell for it…as a get now CP-RED matched with get now politics—a match you’re seeing which is made in heaven—never waste a crisis!
I’m just not sure if anyone besides me is interested in watching and noticing this dance of values…and the emergent paradoxical behavior.
Notice how SWEDEN is being vilified for not locking down and how como is not vilified for his bad outcomes…at FS-GREEN winners and losers are based on politics.
I’ll segue into FS-GREEN: notes at some point with that.
Simply put, any enneagram approach will provide you with a dominant pattern just find your main point of attention and look forward arrows that tell you your point in security and in stress.
Riso Hudson has free short test usually enough and a paid long form maybe 12 bucks.
I suspect Jim is a “7” which I thought I was up until about 2005, I’m clearly an 8.
So Jim’s 1->7->5 is most likely his dominant pattern but like all of us Jim flies with a wing, either 6 or 8.
No way Jim is a 6 although I would suggest a shadow point of note, most likely Jim has an 8 wing.
2->8<-5 (the pattern looks like that)
With Jim’s power, interdependence and low acceptance you would think that 8 might be the dominant pattern however idealism tends to move that point to 7 and more than likely the 7 pattern is present.
I’ve noticed the 8 wing a lot and I question Jim’s low score on venganza/competitiveness and I think if Jim were to contrast the questions between low and high you would see his behavior as pointing to a reversal although not high.
My sense is because Jim is interdependent and noting where he lives and works and who his friends are that the pejorative language (non PC) for venganza that he articulated scored his values and not his motives.
Our society blocks a lot of motive energy and holders must use convuluted theories of action and use to serve the blockage while pretending they are who they are not.
Ok back to my dual patterns:
If you’re “in” the wing, then the wing’s pattern is brightened and active and for motive energy it appears to be a similar idea because ANY FOCUS of energy would block energy and information which makes a person like a Jim/Mike with a high energy profile (TRUMP) seemingly activated in a number of conflicting patterns.
The high energy means that entropy is high because no first tier system is capable of satisficing the energy and you have entropy flying everywhere because of dissipation, including dissipation in the metasystem which consistently causes the switching between the dualing pattern creating even more entropy.
If the metasystem fails to form or forms incompletely you get THE FLY!
The fly in the ointment to use a cliche is the dead spot in the metasystem.
[I started another thread for DQ-BLUE which I started writing into this thread!]
The dualing patterns from your “point” and your “wing” are most likely connected (Siamese) somewhere and mirror your MBTI functions in some form.
That a brother from a whole other mother but suffice it to say, I think I found Jim’s “literat” because at “1” it’s hard to be clear if things don’t line up as Jim’s S function (inferior) is screaming for literal.
On the other hand I’ve upset Jim when I proved for an F function.
In the wing, 2 makes the case for feeling which for me is where the 8 goes in security but unlike Jim I’m low social contact…and as we tend to be statistically aberrational—it’s good to notice these notices…
This all gets very interesting and theoretical but for the high curious. It’s manna from heaven, so to speak.
You read much of the ANTICHRIST and you’ll wonder a lot more;)
One distinguishing factor to allocate memes to CP–RED Is “degree of risk”… and probabikities of:
Low Order (Novelty)
Low acceptance (Self-Confidence)
Low tranquility (Absence of worry)
Lower Order (Novelty)
Others may be in neutral.
More than likely I see higher probability that this motive profile will generate D&F at CP–RED
In acquiring D&F at cousin ER-ORANGE, the risk profile shifts because of utility (low idealism).
Now there remains a huge question (TBA) of the difference of CORE CP–RED and varying density that can be and is acquired in the “sophistication/maturation process (found a bridge Jim;)
For 2 decades I’ve been working on Dynamic Density and recursion after recursion after recursion promotes the discovery and exploration of layers of meaningless that each must solved in the Sophia room process.
Maturation is not a word you can use much because it implies a plateau of —at least—vertical development, even Oblique THE Maturation is a signal of plateauing.
Relegating CP-RED to the bottom in a hierarchy of valuing that makes no sense.
These “sophisticated” CP-RED politicians including TRUMP are all drawing from deep power cores and morphing that power through other core hybridisation!
Typical case is Pelosi who has been a chameleon whose power desires have allowed her to adapt that power core all along the way—so easy to understand if SGD Hierarchy is displaced and my network model is embedded.
It’s clearly the greatest error to push a theory of everything where the elegance is overshadowed by the error.
The VERY SAME modus operandi operates in TRUMP but his base of power has less money and a lack of deep pockets…deep pockets is favoured in a power struggle for hearts and minds that generally could care less (low power and status).
It’s not on me to correct others errors as I’ve tried to convince beck and his following but most of them went the way of FS-GREEN dominance and it was profitable for him to allow it rather than prohibit it…his own power needs obfuscates by a lack of evolution and sophistication in his own power hybridisation.
Only messworks have emerged:(
[I’m sending this update from an original share around March 2020.]
I’m wondering if the reconception of 2nd Tier isn’t the opening of the can of worms in conceptual space related to the conventional approach of hierarchy and development.
Jung discusses Neitchze’s transvaluation of values…in a book he wrote: Memories, Dreams, Reflections at the end of his life.
The idea that jumped for me is directly related to the convergence of metasystematicity with transvaluing.
While it may not be as “practical” as Graves described A’N’ in his final summary in 1981, the idea that existential fears subside seem to relate to an idea I have about the transcendent nature of thinking ABOUT valuing rather valuing itself.
This has always presented issues for me when I started to identify how to assess values in 2nd Tier.
I believe that Graves was most likely a 2nd Tier thinker as it’s difficult to write about a system and not have the horsepower or conceptual space, but…
I’m uncertain as to the type of 2nd Tier thinker he was because the ideas he had about people at A’N’ it what I refer to as GT-YELLOW were of a continuous extension—with distinct differences—yet lacking the qualities of the discontinuous leap he spoke about…as still rational; not metarational, which for me issues in the ideas of partial and paradoxical truths which give rational thinkers so much difficulty.
A discontinuity is illustrated in the following quote:
“The value of something isn’t what someone’s willing to pay, but the value of something is what it contributes.” – George Westinghouse
Items that emerge as semantically meaningful chunks are attempts to value valuing in a way that speaks differently to a metarational formation, or what “may” be captured by transvaluation?
-Truth has sides
-Value in thinking about thinking
-Solutions create problems
-perspective sans values
-assertion and cooperation
-degrees of freedom
–Going forward to the beginning.
-question assumptions upfront
-the choice where and when to intervene?
If (amor fati) will to power is a foundation…
perhaps will to order; will to matter; will to belong are all perspectives that could be the reason why the “attractors” are durable?
If so, then will to generate may provide an insight into transvaluing at 2nd Tier?
However, what becomes essential at 2nd Tier is the idea that people are what they are and therefore valuing their valuing—-rather than trying to change it—-becomes a core attribute of transvaluing?
Thinking Passed Decisions
Less is More
I think you posted this or something like it before. it’s helpful because it “models” looking out or up from 1st tier; with the ability to describe the lower order systems being coordinated, integrated and organised but not able to name the abstraction at the next level, it reveals a struggle…which you would expect to find and require at a 1st:2nd Tier Transition.
[i believe that Herb/Glenn noted in RO work that a “seemingly important” attribute of Stratum V was to be able to “name” the abstraction that emerged from systems at Stratum IV, paraphrased.]
The list you forwarded feels NODAL FS-GREEN, transitioning to EXITING Stage, but not yet dense and frequent enough at CP-RED, DQ-BLUE, ER-ORANGE to unlock the 1:2 tier.
[i need to articulate that heterarchy here is a great tool, on one hand development through stage is occurring in developmental through state, which is why this “feels out of place” so to speak.
Yet heterarchy allows for the ranked elements of hierarchical development as suggested through density and frequency (quality and quantity) to be combined with the unranked elements of parallel in combinatorial assemblage of a memograph depicting the quality and quantity of a memefield.]
The other thing that the list you forwarded does is list motives as specific to 2nd Tier that are represented in all 1st Tier core attractors, which is a giveaway to me because things like low acceptance are not necessarily an indicator (not caring what other people think about them); independence, and others that are suggestive of a particular motive structure—that if you have them, you’re second tier.
What you would see, IMBO, is combinatorial values which may be necessary, but not sufficient.
The list below is a list I’ve been working on since late 1987 and on into early 88 when I coined the term Generati.
The most difficult part of this process for me has been looking at motivational framework (meshworks by Beck, et al) and the values complex or dynamics involved at what is…according to Graves, et al, a remaking of AN-BEIGE at GT-YELLOW, one of the things that spurred me to come to Philippines was to find the Mythical Talisay.
After looking at the genetic code AGCT and seeing a boundary at BO-PURPLE and FS-GREEN, it was easy to begin to look at the repeatable chord Graves spoke of as “4” instead of “6” where 4! = 24 and 6! = 720; therefore the complexity of 6 is beyond the scope of human ease, where 24 makes some since, especially since each of 4 core attractors has 3 states and 2 transitions between each single 1 core as a math play;) However as a networked heterarchy there is plenty of conceptual space, WHICH may in fact be PAAR for GT-Y…a leap in conception beyond conception.
This by and of itself shows mathematics as a necessary tool at GT-YELLOW and is and of itself a psychologically momentous leap which few will make, yet second tier distinguishes the relationship between 1st tier, IMBO with these interrelationships between math, physics, biology, anthropology, ecology, technology, psychology, economics, evolution, sociology and politics, etc…as necessary, (remain) not sufficient qualities that seem to be the moniker at the cusp of second tier; much like a values constellation is…where transvaluation may be operative—confounding my own attempts to grasp the essence of the transition to 2nd Tier.
In some ways, this allows us to explain why people like Reiss and even Graves himself “may” not have been second tier because systematic reasoning, which is responsible for their systems work, is not a sign (noted in the list below as “systems thinker”) that they are automatically second tier<—The process which changes the way we categorise most of the thinking today regarding 1st and 2nd tier Intellection is a talent that occurs in all core attractors, or we would still be living in caves. This is why it takes 3 decades to attempt to codify a list of attributes possibly indicative of a second tier beginning.
Metasytematicity may be in the necessary, not sufficient camp as may all of these attributes, which makes it COMPLEX and that in and of itself is necessary, not sufficient, as well.
Here’s the list for the “second”time and it’s not ready for prime time yet, as I have missing pieces that have not formed clearly.
My next step is to unpack these into the lower order and working backwards will reveal the formula for what’s missing and Gary is after me for Dynamic Inquiry and he is unrequited…which may very well describe one of the elements that’s missing and I have to organise these into categories in order to coordinate and integrate them into the next order which would then bound the core attractor from a hierarchically complex view. Can’t be done just looking up, must also transcend and include in order to understand backwards emergence; and then ignore transcend and include; classic paraposition (as a gt-y gateway value).
This is a lot harder than it looks because of the unpacking and repacking that goes on in heterarchical complexity.
One note before you read through this mess is that I’m suggesting that the “isms” shift to “ists” to reflex the nature of the agentic shift…reminding you to note that Gt-YELLOW is not the higher octave of AN-BEIGE, but of CP-RED, which is a lot bigger leap than it would appear.
[Graves, et al suggested survival of self moving in the next tier to survival of system/Globe, but it’s too big a leap cognitively you go to Globe, as Jacque’s notes in his idea about complexity as “universal”…I’m sure GT-Y is Metasystematic and HU, more than likely Paradigmatic; not Cross-Paradigmatic or MetaParadigmatic, there are no thinkers looking out or down I’ve seen or heard of that are in the range of IV-CORAL, or JW-TEAL, using the SGD nomenclature…and no CONCEPTUAL 3rd Tier, as mentioned by a few people.
Spicules, does not a stage make. Jaques mentioned this observation in reference to developmental spikes, possible states, noting the analogy of spicules and our sun.]
“… any theory would be one that emerged from an understanding of human nature and how it has continued to recreate our behaviour each generation—almost NO difference than any of the past generations—no matter how intelligent the culture gets.”
RightACTION (a nine-fold path?)
Early Self-Aware (>Kegan 4/5)
Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)
Simulationist (System Dynamics) Modellist
Everybody’s Right Sometimes, or thinks or feels they are
Cynthesist (Creative Synthesis)
Freedomist (existential fear)
Necessary, but not sufficient
Form, process, matter
*Im uncertain of this inclusion as it may be indicative in the transition between 1st and 2nd Tier in the transition spaces; or the exiting stage of FS-green!
Can’t remember where I cataloged this list. It obviously is blank slate and creates lots of cul-de-sacs but thought it thematically interesting.
In aggregate, it has a gestalt that is relatively consistent. Something about it is ungrounded though. Can’t quite put my finger on it.
Maybe about the deeper rhythms of the process of creation, emergence is missing. There’s no heartbeat in it, no profound messiness. No incarnation. ?
Gt–Yellow Values / Capabilities
- Multi-perspectivalness – take many perspectives on reality (analogy: telescope vs camera with 15 built in lens, or radio telescope arrays using multiple dishes to coalesce a signal)
- Every perspective is partially true, not all perspectives are equal
- Natural hierarchies
- Ideas and solutions are more interesting than community
- Nuance and complexity
- Novel concepts and points of view
- Generating fresh insights
- Systems thinking
- Nonlinear / complexity dynamics
- Sustainability and long time horizons
- Big picture understanding (synthesis, connecting the dots) vs. technical analysis (going “meta”)
- Penetrating to the core of an issue
- Identifying and solving root problems
- Taking a multi-disciplinary approach (mixing perspectives from soft and hard sciences, in between different disciplines, etc)
- Creativity and outside of the box solutions
- Ecology, responsible ways of being
- Studying models and modeling things
- Education, knowledge, research and reading (with an strong focus on diverse perspectives)
- Clean content and concentrated information
- Life-long learning and proactive about learning
- Expertise, competence and experience
- Context and learning from history
- Developing skills to become an instrument for the greater whole
- Independent thinking
- Neutrality; being objective and impartial
- Designing solutions for the entire spiral vs. ones own value hiearchy
- Meeting people where they are at
- Building bridges
- Social engineering
- Ecological designs
- Reducing the suffering of living systems
- Pulling ideas from many sources, combining ideas, models and theories
- Left-brained and Right-brained
- Vision, purpose and being a visionary
- Requisite variety and mental flexibility
- Self-actualization, paradox, uncertainty, responsibility,
- Independence and autonomy…and being a lone wolf (vs. group hive mind)
- Beyond concerns for self survival, money, achievement, recognition, prizes, awards
- Attitude is non manipulative
- Cares about ecology and collateral damage
- Long time horizon
- Non-judgmental and neutral
- Aware of the entire spiral (multiple systems of values and world views) and itself
- Creates designs that accommodate the entire spiral
o Non ideological and highly principled
o Acts from an inter-directed core
o Strong ethical core, but doesn’t derive from a religion, own inner wisdom
o Feels that understanding other worldviews is critical to navigating life, some kernel of truth in every worldview
o Few ideas are sacred, all ideas are subject to revision and upgrade, being inside of an evolving universe and being a reflection of that, mind is continuously evolving to reflect this.
o The world is a complex self organizing natural system that requires integral solutions
o Sees the complexity of life
o Appreciates just how complex social issues are
o Introduces lots of ideas and connections and complexity
o Overarching view of living systems
o Takes effective action to support the whole
o Integrates science, religion and personal development
o Doesn’t really care what others think about him
o Nothing is evil or purely negative
o Every system has value, but it doesn’t mean every system or perspective is equal (vs. false equivalency)
o Certain perspectives are downright wrong and unhealthy, and will recognize this
o Everything is constantly evolving and changing
o Given up tradition or old status quo ways of doing things
o Believes in being adaptable, adapting to your environment, that’s how you survive.
o Sees deep common threads everywhere
o Able to hold two contradictory perpectives at the same time
o Greater degree of behavioral freedom
o Flexibly flowing with changing conditions
o Sees a need for natural living environments that support human evolution.
o Has an overarching vision of a system and then determines what the system needs to grow and blossom (if systems are the plants, you are the gardner)
o Moves freely between different value systems
o Believes in acupuntural interventions (taking a small action to have a big impact)
o Is aware of self-bias and self-deception
o Looks beyond merely human interests