Prompted by this thread and pulling in the issues I’ve seen with people who are atypical and their battles between madness and acceptance, and the adam curtis documentaries.
I’ve grown concerned to the value of sharing the results of preference compasses (such as big 5, myer briggs, dsm, 8 values, nolan) which are conclusions that obfuscate away why one believes what he believes, leaving only the belief and not the reasoning, of which the reasoning is now projected onto him rather than understood.
Outcomes become better when relevant reasons are provided, not just preferences. This is because one can draw preferences from an abundant aether, whereas reality tests preferences to find out which survived selective pressures of sustainability, fairness, justness, and validity, distilling abundant preferences into scarce integrations.
Further, the issue does not seem redeemable by supplementing the cursory preferences with the cursory reasons; as it does not resolve the conflict of planting arbitrary flags first, and seeking bridges second.
It seems best to me, to wait until a specific issue becomes a contention, then take our diversity into that issue with the now relevant arguments; which is everyone in the same assembly collaborating on the issue first, and competing on identities as a supporting second.
Preference sharing seems to risk the embodiment of people as lesser-nations (minuscule scale yet same national responsibilities, such as policy design, border control, enculturation, foreign power balances) rather than as the actors/fountainheads/ubermensch/agents that have a capacity to transcend such national boundaries yet all the while organically shaping them.
Preference surveys seem to do what psychoanalysis surveys have done; despite serving as a tool for beneficial self-discovery, collectively they also serve to create virtual identity borders that eventually spawn a divergence acceptance movement to counteract alienating artificial normalities.
Thinking about my position some more, planting flags is a good invitation to solicit counters, however its lack of pragmatism seems to risk conflating the world with a worldview, and as such avoids meeting the correct integrations as it distances theory (abundant) and practice (scarce). Do we really want a dictator (of any power level) planting flags at his whims for the aim of his self-discovery against the productivity of his peers which are incited to react, with the dictator learning the hard way what he could have learned organically the smart way? This balance is something I will ponder more on.
To an extent, I guess it is akin to the contextual validity between debates and discussions. Debates are useful for isolating the differences, discussions are useful for resolving the differences.