Quote from Mathieu on November 27, 2021, 11:47 pm

@lucio

100%.

I really appreciate the feedback.

I will navigate this forum by the rules and try to add as much value as I can.

Cheers mate.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on November 28, 2021, 12:12 am

Happy to read that man, the first "tough love feedback" always tells you a lot about someone's character.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on December 6, 2021, 5:56 pm

Hi Lucio,

We discussed Power University formatting from a customer's perspective.

Now I would like to express and describe how it affects me personally.

I feel that the direction/priority of Power University has changed as highlighted in your recent message:

Original Direction: expand the scope of power dynamics.
Formatting is less important.
The passionate learners will learn anyways.

(This was my impression not only on the 2 trailblazer/aggregator threads but also whenever the community brought up points on formatting and marketing)

New Direction: a training tool to internalise the foundations of power dynamics.
I indirectly view this as formatting has increased in priority.
The learning experience of the majority becomes important in addition to the content.

This situation didn't put me on a good footing (not necessarily by you or me) because

1. It suggests that I didn't understand the priorities
   I was following the original priority of increasing the scope of power dynamics.
   Understanding the priorities of a social environment is important.
   Now I may lose respect from the community.
2. Previously I adapted & bought into the original direction.
   Now the direction changed abruptly.
   I have to adapt/accept whatever takes place.
   This has a mild shock effect.

   I also prefer to stay in the original direction.
   Because I have invested emotionally and tangibly time-wise into this community, I feel that I have to quickly follow the new changes against my preferences regardless.
   I feel that I'm thrown into cold water.

3. I feel that I sabotaged myself by adding concepts to Power University.
   Maybe it's a relatively small contribution in comparison to the vast content but it's the feeling and intention.
   Now I feel compromised on my learning preferences due to the enlarged scope needing to be cut down.

How I Feel the Above Can Be Mitigated with your Help

Adding in a direct statement saying that the direction has changed would help me a lot.

For example,

We have reached a new milestone.
The priorities of Power University have changed.

This makes it easier for me to understand what's going on and gives me time to adapt.

I prefer not investing my time and energy in the wrong direction.

Feel free to share any thoughts, and thank you for your time in any case.
If time doesn't permit, a thumbs up would also help me.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 7, 2021, 4:25 am

Hello Matthew,

I think there are some assumptions here that do not reflect reality.

Addressing them:

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on December 6, 2021, 5:56 pm

Original Direction: expand the scope of power dynamics.
Formatting is less important.
The passionate learners will learn anyways.

You know this of course, but it's an important distinction that needs to be surfaced anyway:

A course does not expand anything by itself, people do.

It's the community that expands the discipline (you, me, many other smart guys here, plus also people asking beginner questions that either open up new case studies, highlight a lack of clarity in some concepts, or some holes that need to be filled).

Then the question might become "how does that expanding wisdom get codified".

In a product, a series of products, in a series of articles, in a dictionary, in the forums... ?

And what and how should be codification verbatim, 1:1, conceptualized at higher levels or abstractions + examples, or as a "best of"?

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on December 6, 2021, 5:56 pm

1. It suggests that I didn't understand the priorities
   I was following the original priority of increasing the scope of power dynamics.
   Understanding the priorities of a social environment is important.
   Now I may lose respect from the community.

This seems to be the main misunderstanding.

That is one of the major goals of the community / website.

It still is, and it will be for quite some time (until there will be little new to add, and who knows when that will be. I suspect quite some time away though. As someone said "the more I know, the more I realize I need to know more").

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on December 6, 2021, 5:56 pm

1. Previously I adapted & bought into the original direction.
   Now the direction changed abruptly.
   I have to adapt/accept whatever takes place.
   This has a mild shock effect.

The direction has not changed.

Not abruptly and, I might say, not even changed at all.

The only time when the direction might "change abruptly" is when the discipline will be mature enough that the goal of the community / website will be more on organizing, structuring, and simplifying the new concepts, rather than adding new ones (for example: focus on infographics, better video examples, etc. etc.).

And even then, that will likely not be "abrupt" either, but more like an organic, slow shift.

The direction also hasn't changed for PU, by the way.

PU is the most effective way to learn power dynamics.

There is a higher bar now for what goes inside, and that's a good thing.
But there always was a bar.
Even in the beginning, many of the more theoretical parts were linked out, cut out, or turned from theoretical ideas into more practical ones (that's why you opened a topic one day asking if one should read PU's resources, and I remember saying that my opinion was "not necessary").

So a description of PU might be "Power University = the most effective way to learn and internalize power dynamics, while upgrading oneself, and becoming more effective with people across the board".

The best and most foundational concepts always find their way in.
The "good ones", "good to know" and "for those who want more" get linked out.
The "OK ones" and/or some of the examples and applications are in the forum or in some articles / reviews.

It was always like that.

There is more now though. And more link-outs as well. And that's a great thing.
People who need or want more, have more material and examples to understand and internalize concepts, and to apply them to their lives.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on December 6, 2021, 5:56 pm

1. I feel that I sabotaged myself by adding concepts to Power University.
   Maybe it's a relatively small contribution in comparison to the vast content but it's the feeling and intention.
   Now I feel compromised on my learning preferences due to the enlarged scope needing to be cut down.

I think there is an assumption / hidden frame here that "Power University = Power Dynamics".

Instead, the way I see it is "Power Dynamics > Power University".

And the way I see it, it couldn't be otherwise.

It's the same for any discipline worth being called a discipline. No book or course or classroom on psychology equals psychology (not even in the various subcategories of psychology).

Because a discipline expands, the first version of PU was as big as power dynamics.
But that was not a good thing.
It only meant that power dynamics was in its infancy.

And that also meant that the first version(s) had a lot less added value.
It was just a collection of my personal observations ("judge power dynamics" was a single text snapshot), shreds of practical insights and advice instead of new frameworks (early "frame control" was more about disproving "agree and exaggerate" than learning frames and more effective techniques / mindsets / strategies), and only embryonic systemic level advice (such as "power + warmth", but without examples and a very ugly power matrix :).

Now, community-driven, power dynamics is becoming a proper discipline.

And with a bigger discipline, a good and deep course naturally switches more and more from being the discipline, into being the foundations of a discipline.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on December 6, 2021, 5:56 pm

Adding in a direct statement saying that the direction has changed would help me a lot.

We have reached a new milestone.
The priorities of Power University have changed.

To sum it up, I don't see any major change.

The way I see it, the formatting is a detail.
The length as well.

And the only change that came out of the discussion on "breaking up and dividing between foundational and advanced", in the end, was the "breaking up".

The way I see it, whether the concepts are in a long lesson of PU or broken up in smaller chunks, is a detail.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on December 7, 2021, 5:23 am

Hi Lucio,

I agree with your first line, and thank you for taking the time to write in detail.

This is how I feel.
We have a different interpretation of how things are taking place.
(my subjective interpretation of how things have changed and are changing)
We also have a different approach to what a course and discipline entails.

The direction has not changed.

Not abruptly and, I might say, not even changed at all.

The only time when the direction might "change abruptly" is when the discipline will be mature enough that the goal of the community / website will be more on organizing, structuring, and simplifying the new concepts, rather than adding new ones (for example: focus on infographics, better video examples, etc. etc.).

And even then, that will likely not be "abrupt" either, but more like an organic, slow shift.

The direction also hasn't changed for PU, by the way.

I feel that the direction has changed.
Again my subjective opinion.

This is due to my perceived changes in the re-arrangement of Power University.

I think there is an assumption / hidden frame here that "Power University = Power Dynamics".

Instead, the way I see it is "Power Dynamics > Power University".

And the way I see it, it couldn't be otherwise.

It's the same for any discipline worth being called a discipline. No book or course or classroom on psychology equals psychology (not even in the various subcategories of psychology).

Yeah, I was unclear in how I phrased this.
I prefer the level of detail and the formatting in the original Power University.
By adding more concepts/details, indirectly this shifted away from my personal preferences.

So I'm not referring to the discipline in this particular statement.
Thanks for elaborating on how you feel about Power University relates to Power Dynamics as a discipline.
This allows me to understand your approach better.

Also, indeed, you have more experience in power dynamics, psychology and social sciences.
My research experience stems from other different fields that indirectly touches on the social sciences.

Maybe this is a point where we have our differences in our approach.

Nevertheless, I want to thank you for addressing my points.
I am better prepared to navigate this on my side.

I wanted to write a snapshot of my views in response to your writing before writing a deeper response (or because a concise response could be better).

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 7, 2021, 5:49 am

Cool, thank you for openly sharing your views and feelings.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on December 7, 2021, 5:23 am

I prefer the level of detail and the formatting in the original Power University.
By adding more concepts/details, indirectly this shifted away from my personal preferences.

OK, and how did it change in your view?

Feel free to spin off this somewhere else as it seems to be less personal and more about content.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on December 7, 2021, 6:50 am

My views in a snapshot are in
Question: do you prefer lessons shorter & broken up, OR longer and condensed into a single one?, Post #13

But I understood that your priority now is the development of Seduction University.

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on December 7, 2021, 2:36 pm

We are again very much on the same page as we dig deeper.

I think there are some assumptions here that do not reflect reality.

Would it be possible to consider the following, alternative statements in the future?

A neutral statement:

We have a different subjective interpretation of the context.

Or if you would like to challenge my premises:

I would like to challenge the premises in your argument.

For the following section,

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on December 6, 2021, 5:56 pm

Original Direction: expand the scope of power dynamics.
Formatting is less important.
The passionate learners will learn anyways.

You know this of course, but it's an important distinction that needs to be surfaced anyway:

A course does not expand anything by itself, people do.

It's the community that expands the discipline (you, me, many other smart guys here, plus also people asking beginner questions that either open up new case studies, highlight a lack of clarity in some concepts, or some holes that need to be filled).

Then the question might become "how does that expanding wisdom get codified".

In a product, a series of products, in a series of articles, in a dictionary, in the forums... ?

And what and how should be codification verbatim, 1:1, conceptualized at higher levels or abstractions + examples, or as a "best of"?

We are actually more on the same page if you put my following points together:

Original Direction: expand the scope of power dynamics.
Formatting is less important.
The passionate learners will learn anyways.

(This was my impression not only on the 2 trailblazer/aggregator threads but also whenever the community brought up points on formatting and marketing)

New Direction: a training tool to internalise the foundations of power dynamics.
I indirectly view this as formatting has increased in priority.
The learning experience of the majority becomes important in addition to the content.

So we are spending more time on the "what" and "how" that you mentioned.
What I'm saying is that

• Previously: Codification was of primary importance as you mentioned.
  It's about getting the gist of the concepts.
  That doesn't have to take into account as much of the learning experience or formatting.
  It still does but not as much.
• Now: Now we place greater emphasis on the learning experience and formatting.
  The breaking up, the length of the lessons, etc.
  Necessary in my opinion as you advised when the scope of concepts gets bigger.

This is why I feel that the direction has changed.

Why I say it's abrupt is precisely how you described the discipline of Power Dynamics in relation to Power University.
The discipline of Power Dynamics reached a milestone where Power University cannot "contain" the whole discipline.

Power Dynamics changes gradually.
The milestone of Power Dynamics exceeding Power University was signified by the breaking up, re-organisation, etc.
I took the re-formatting as a signifier of this milestone.

This influences how I would learn or contribute to a discipline in my opinion:

• Studying, thinking about, linking current concepts become more important relative to "finding" new concepts.
  At the start, you have nothing so finding new concepts is key.
• Finding exceptions, edge cases to make sure we are not solidifying in the wrong direction.
  I believe at the very start, you want to focus on similarities first.
  Concepts are nothing more than patterns.
  At the start, the discipline lacks concepts.
• Data becomes more important
  Partially why I'm suggesting behavioural quizzes.
  "Power-awareness or social-awareness" behavioural quizzes.

  We have lots of anecdotes.
  What if we get data to complement these anecdotes.
  A proper discipline deserves proper data.

Probably more points that I don't realise.

I see this as an "abrupt" phase transition like water freezing to ice suddenly at 0°C.
Like we entered a new stage.
Or I was slow to realise which is why it's abrupt.

When I say I prefer the original direction, I meant that I prefer finding new concepts.
Rather than doing the above points.
But actually, I may be wrong and enjoy doing the above points as well.

Again, we are again very much on the same page as we dig deeper.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 7, 2021, 2:50 pm

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on December 7, 2021, 2:36 pm

We are again very much on the same page as we dig deeper.

I think there are some assumptions here that do not reflect reality.

Would it be possible to consider the following, alternative statements in the future?

A neutral statement:

We have a different subjective interpretation of the context.

Or if you would like to challenge my premises:

I would like to challenge the premises in your argument.

 

Yeah, that wasn't very power protecting or considerate :), my apologies.