Part two of this three-part series will focus on a dogmatic versus a scientific orientation. Why is this important?
One of these orientations creates a sense of victimhood and outrage. If you recall from part 1, this is the part of Karpman’s Drama Triangle we can actively work to not fall into. The other orientation allows us to keep time and randomness working in our favor. If this interests you then read on and see how you can start shaping this part of your operating system.
If you somehow stumbled onto this article before going through Part 1 of the Adaptive Dilemma you can check it out here.
https://guardianacademy.io/the-adaptive-dilemma-part-1-language-and-self-efficacy/
Listen: Apple Podcasts | Spotify
Dogmatic Orientation Vs Scientific Orientation
Originally introduced by Dr. Trevor Kashey. The same concept can be seen in high performance sports as adaptive fitness (scientific orientation)- Dr. Jeff Spencer.
Dogmatic Orientation
The Dogmatic Orientation has rigid expectations about outcomes which causes outrage and victimhood when reality doesn’t meet these arbitrary expectations. This is governed by absolutes (what we call “all-or-nothing thinking.”)
Here is an example- You wake up one day and don’t like the way you look. You decide to lose 10 lbs in 30 days and if you don’t do this then that particular weight loss tactic you were using doesn’t work.
There is no rigidity about the process, yet there is an expectation that the outcome has to go exactly as expected. This leads to results of victimhood and outrage (when things aren’t perfect as expected).
Scientific Orientation
The Scientific Orientation assumes there are a wide variety of potential outcomes with different probabilities (expected values). This is governed by risk and probabilities. We are looking to increase the probability of a favorable outcome and decrease the risk.
Using a controlled process, with variables isolated, and knowing there is a wide variety of potential/expected outcomes with different probabilities.
The result of having a Scientific Orientation is learning and power over future outcomes.
Two different orientations (1 rigid in the outcome, the other rigid in the process)
Dogmatic Vs Scientific Chart Comparison
Recap
Dogmatic Orientation– Working against time and randomness
- Arbitrary (not enough data to suggest this is a reasonable thing to expect), maintains rigid outcomes.
- Specific, predefined things must happen.
- Only pre-approved outcomes are acceptable.
- Impulsive, destructive, and rigid system.
- Rigidity is in the expected outcome, not the process.
Scientific Orientation– Keep time and randomness on your side
- Rigor lies in the structure and process.
- Variables measured and controlled.
- All outcomes are conceivable and acceptable (data).
- Expectations seldom violated
- Rational, constructive, and flexible.
- Probability and risk-based.
- Open to new information.
Language and Orientation
Is our language focused on process (flexible, focused on risk and probabilities) or outcomes (absolutes and rigidity in outcome)?
Saying, “Making this choice gives me a higher probability of getting what I want.” is much different than saying “I’m going to make this move because it’s going to make me rich.” The latter statement is an absolute which is something we want to try and avoid as much as possible.
What happens if it doesn’t make you rich? You’ve positioned yourself in the victim part of the triangle.
Time and Randomness are undefeated
Keep these two on your side by working on coming from a scientific orientation. We’ve opened some loops, sit with it for a bit, reflect, journal, discuss, and then drop your 6WU below.
Drop your 6WU- Wisdom Comes From Multiple Perspectives
Drop your 6WU into the Adaptive Dilemma thread below.
https://twitter.com/TheGuardianAcad/status/1604846348099911681?s=20&t=VgAIyqLsnEAOE0JQyeP-dA
Part 3
https://guardianacademy.io/the-adaptive-dilemma-part-3-adaptive-versus-technical-problems/