2020 October

CP-RED: Notes

One distinguishing factor to allocate memes to CPRED Is “degree of risk”… and probabikities of:

Some Curiosity
Low Order (Novelty)
Low acceptance (Self-Confidence)
Low tranquility (Absence of worry)
Lower Order (Novelty)
Low Saving
Venganza (Competitiveness)

Others may be in neutral.

More than likely I see higher probability that this motive profile will generate D&F at CPRED

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 CPRED 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.



23 replies on “CP-RED: Notes”

“E.g. the only one below I am on the other side of is vengeance.”

Even when you observe what you see as bullying?

Alicia Parr

I’m low vengeance on the Reiss.

I think motives are one strong path to building behavioral density.

But there are other paths to functional densities. Which allows me to do that fairly well now.

Thanks, Jim. Helpful clarification.

Mike said “More than likely I see higher probability that this motive profile will generate D&F at CP-RED”

So higher probability of behavior patterns that fit to CP-RED if motives feed them directly, but can be indirect via other motives.

Perhaps an analog is my low social contact motive and hence long history of showing up on assessments as an introvert. But people meet me cannot imagine that I could be anything but an extrovert. Even online. And I do behave very much like an extrovert. The visible patterns fit. But the behaviors are motivated by other motives.

I wonder how often this kind of thing happens– building a behavior pattern from different roots than is typical? I’ve certainly advised this approach when coaching quite a fit, so it can’t be that infrequent I suppose. But the direct motive-behavior path is probably the most robust.

I don’t know if you would find a correlation or not on motive structures and values. You would think you would but it sure does not necessarily correlate.

E.g. I have the motive structure in spades for CP-Red that mike lays out but extremely low natural value for it.

It all went to it’s cousin ER-Orange.

And yes it can come out in unlimited combinations. E.g. low social contact and extroversion. Extroversion can be expressed on lots of other ways other than peer relationships which is what social contact means in the Reiss framework.

Your high idealism, interdepence and low vengeance keep you from the core constraints that won’t let you out of the constellation so the constant need to morph the power and the energy:

9-11 high energy requirements keep you “up” and also a conundrum because you have so many motives that are actively seeking attention and service…unrequited (gt-y) artefact?

The other thing that surfaces is the mix of opposites:

Low venganza-low acceptance
High power-lower status
Low acceptance-interdependence
Low family-interdependence
Low acceptance-idealism

Those will all keep you from being very happy in a CP-RED core. So you will use the power to build…with others.

7-5-1 Enneagram?

The 1 might be where the literal comes.

On a side note: (Ennragram)

I’ve been experiencing a dualistic form of energy and information with the enneagram that I was reminded to speak about it but I’ll rename the thread.


That was my point…based on your list of motives.

Probably just should have said your list doesn’t work – it’s missing some big pieces of the puzzle.

Arrested, in the grip…all pejorative framings btw. How about I am not naturally an asshole, so I don’t know how do asshole very well, so it comes off as forced, etc ??

I’m not unhappy when I’m in the “grip.” I am mostly exercising fit behavior…my best sense of it based on what I think needs to happen. I don’t enjoy it, if that is what you mean…so there is no visceral return to wired motive structures. But I am comfortable that it is very fit behavior.


CP-Red will be just fine btw. You can’t get much done without it. Those that have the wiring for it will just rise right back up through the societal power structures.

BTW – almost every email you send has brush pitches in them. I assume you don’t even know what I’m talking about.

This one, as the other recent three or four, is chalk full of them. My sense, it clouds your perspectives and def. your feedback loops to others.

E.g. If I allowed this one in as feedback to really listen to and be designed by…allowed your truth about me to be my truth…it would be a recipe for unmitigated slow boiling frog disaster.

I am not at all proposing a design change. In fact, I keep giving you fodder, hopefully substantively, for your cannons so to speak.

People competing or taking you head on (in the moment) produces a fairly consistent response. (high competitive, high vengeance) My experience of course.

I know exactly how to accommodate this from a conflict/engagement perspective. But that just doesn’t work. Gets no where interesting for starters. So I can either walk away or allow you to be you. But for me to allow you to be you I generally need to match your energy, otherwise I will not stay at the table.

Now you can call that “arrested” or in the “grip.” Or that I am using inferior functions to be in conversation with you over an extended period of time.

It doesn’t make me happy, on the other hand it makes me profoundly satisfied over time…which is vastly more important, necessary for my wiring.

“ BTW – almost every email you send has brush pitches in them. I assume you don’t even know what I’m talking about.”

Aren’t you directly modelling that?


I’ll give you a contrast in my behavior, because this is fodder for values at 2nd Tier. So worth noting.

I am extremely disciplined in my reactions to conflict / difference in the work I do. It is just too VUCA not to control for this – my reactions / behavior.

e.g. I was in a conversation with my black friend/colleague the other day. This is a VUCA world beyond description so even though we are good friends…this one will be for the distance…I am still very careful and almost always aware and deliberate about my responses. So my sense the other day…he insinuated I was stepping across the line in terms of whether I should be concerned with a particular issue. The details aren’t important, other than I felt he was projecting on my an issue he had with a whole bunch of other white people. I flaired up with tone (scale of 1 to 10, around a 4) – asking him what he was talking about.. To be honest, I was tired and had enough emotional field management at the moment.

Punchline – he got very concerned. In the 15 years we have been working together, this was the 3rd time I had used this tone. 1000s of interactions, 1000s of problems resolved. So he really thought we had an issue vs. me just losing a moment of control in how I was engaging the problem.

He is high acceptance, high interdependence, high social contact, etc. so anything that creates tension is a really difficult thing for him…so we find other ways – very productive – to get at the problems we need to solve. Race is a exponential complexity mulitpier.


So what you are experiencing on this list…is generally deliberate behavior, with myself giving me permission to flair up. But for me it is also honoring the value structures at CP-Red for example…that is required for productive engagement with CP-Red.

Or…our family culture is overwhelming at Blue. High order, high tranquility, kids with lots of structure and parents willing to go the mat on whatever is necessary to create those structures and discipline behavior toward them. Family meals, kids with chores, kids needing to keep room clean, device time seriously controlled, we attempt to not do anything for them that they can do for themselves…which means they go to their Ortho appoints on their bike, get themselves to the hair cutter, etc…

If you think I don’t have much Red…well let’s not get started on Blue. Almost a pure absence in the value matrix…but that does not mean the values cannot be used…assimilated…designed with.

They are fit and serve essential functions. Their absence is not systemically healthy. That’s a 2nd Tier stand and capability. The meta-value is something around deeply valuing the importance, necessity of the full basket of values at Tier 1. Probably a better way to say it…but it is not an intellectual knowing…as with all values…it is an emergent valuing that has solidity…just because.

If you can’t do that, there is no way you are at 2nd Tier.

Or..if a pitcher throws a brush back pitch or hits the batter intentionally, what is the only viable response from the other team the very next inning? Everyone knows what is coming, especially the batter for the other team coming in to bat.

You just threw another brush back pitch…and then I did the same….

I don’t see anything wrong with this as long as the parties understand what is occurring. It’s like dueling I suppose. I am assuming you are making assumptions about me as I am with you. For example, I don’t think you like push back.. But then if I didn’t push back, I’d just be ceding the ground and you would have nothing/no one to compete with.

Ironically, most high vengeance people I know don’t necessarily like to compete, they like to win. There’s a big difference in that competing can be very hard on them.

High compete / high vengeance (or high DF at CP-Red) has clear engagement protocols. These can be enhanced/dampened by other motive structures and values…but you generally have one of three options as their conversation partner.

Walk away – don’t engage
Be obsequious, subservient, subordinate
Toughen up and get in the game, play by the other person’s rules or get smashed. Tit for tat is almost always a good form for ongoing relationships within this structure. (almost all engagement is collaborative/cooperative btw)

Look at Trump…those are the three options being deployed by everyone..

A serious question…what am I missing? (Transmuting the game generally does NOT work)

This can be extremely productive…but you have to take the moralizing out of it. I recall the stories told about Michael Jordan in this context. A jerk by any reasonable definition…but the intensity and density of his CP-Red (high compete / high vengeance) drew 6 championships out of a TEAM sport.

It’s just hard on everyone including the high vengeance person (back to toughening up). My last business partner (high honor / high vengeance – wicked combination) walked away before I did. Got tired of fighting…fights that he created. If you want a structure that creates phantom problems high honor with high vengeance is a good one – everyone is violating some norm, law, trying to screw you, etc)

He never learned how to sustainably fight in 40 years. People just walked away or put him in a box. He’s now fully retired.

“ I wonder how often this kind of thing happens…”

In people at or above abstract who can objectify a theory of mind…ALWAYS!

People always wear a mask and mask the real self almost always.

One part of confusion with extra version and introversion is that we are all extraverting and always inteoverting.

A few of the great speakers were introverts…don’t ask me to name;)

Because they don’t say every thought that comes to mind like the quintessential TRUMP extrovert!

The issue is which function your extraverting…the auxiliary (LT) or the Dominant (General).

Extra version and introversion are determined from where you derive energy not how much or little you express;)

There are lots of “quiet” extroverts that you would think are introverts and lots of expressive introverts, so it’s difficult to judge whether a person is an introvert or extraverting from expression;)

As to using means which are dislocated from ends, TRUMP CLASIC LEADERSHIP FAILURE will always be the lockdown!

But his means to an end and his own lack of awareness of accurate self-assessment fooled him into going along instead of fighting it all the way instead of most of the way once he realised but will never admit that the lockdown was HIS ERROR.

This is also why it is so difficult to attach values to behavior, unless it’s repeated and reproducible in other contexts.

Especially now since we have FS-GREEN dominant in culture, because chameleon behavior is expected, saying whatever you can or have to please or not displease as many as you can.

FS-GREEN has an arrangement with the truth and it’s whatever you can convince people of which means lying or spinning the truth.

If you take a poll about what TRUMP said at Charleston people will say he’s a racist because of the phrase (disingenuously chopped from the context and content with conditions to form a new code statement: “fine people on both sides!”

So the human game is who can mask and unmask behaviors to influence politically;) and thus gain pwr, control, and money to influence more to get p,c,m over and over and over again = wealth; not equal to well-being.

Why is Joe Biden a multimillionaire from 47 years of public service?

We must pay to well;)


“A few of the great speakers were introverts…don’t ask me to name;)”

The author, Dan Pink. Not sure he’d be called a ‘great speaker’, but he’s quite good. Saw him mode-switch post a talk and then have to reswitch back on when my colleague approached him. Micro-expressions and body language said he’d have rather just powered down and gone somewhere quiet to rejuvenate.


I don’t really make much specific meaning out of it.

Nor do I think you are intentionally doing anything other than you being you. Nor do I think you notice or have much interest in understanding impact.

Nor do I think anything is wrong. I personally have no issue with it. Not asking you to change a thing. You keep on being you. I’m good!


I think we have enough fodder in the dynamic to give us useful data. At a certain level of development, having discussions with ourselves…our thinking/feeling, etc. is just a navel gazing exercise to nowhere. It’s like playing basketball by yourself. Nothing wrong with that. It is not a path to significant development though. Attempting jump shots against a peer is an exponentially more difficult thing to do than practicing shooting jumpers uncontested. If we thought it were, you and I would be off journaling on our own.


My notes below were partly pulling back the curtain to make the point – values can be valued/used because they are fit but not sourced from a self that is hardwired for the value (or value basin).

E.g. none of my behavior is being sourced by vengeance. I find it sometimes funny, often ridiculous, the counter swell I have to create to bring real vengeance to the dance. It suboptimizes my capability significantly not having something more than I have – again as an embedded motive structure. I used to think my “low competitive” was somehow a mark of spiritual maturity…LOL. Talk about idiotic self-hugging. Now I design for it, around it, import it in, walk away from work when it is not available in sufficient densities, etc.

In terms of this list – I am simply describing the structure that allows ME to stay in this arena so to speak (and many others like it that I seem to find myself in quite frequently). At this point, I am not trying to understand you or make up something about you…just trying to figure out what works to stay in the game.

It’s a tough arena. 🙂 an extreme example of course…but also the results speak for themselves.

There are actually four options vs three: 1)walk away 2) be subordinate 3) play the game the way the game is played

The 4th…absorb, go meta on the dynamics. I can go there with a fair bit of sophistication given that I am so high in accommodation. But in high compete/high vengeance environments…that gets you no where. It is a position that will mostly get you slaughtered or it is just highly unproductive. And it doesn’t provide the necessary tension.

I will say I often absorb, am nonreactive…especially on the home front…but that is very different context than this.

Again, for me, in this context here…mostly #3 is the structure that can work (for me).. Which means all it takes is for you to be ok with it too. Developmentally this is the richest path by a mile…but it can be a bit bumpy along the way.


Interestingly, we are modeling cross-paradigmatic thinking in the aggregate. My sense…that is mostly how cross-paradigmatic thinking emerges. You are in conversations with others who are bringing full and multiple paradigms to the table…and which are steeped in KSEs that ground the thinking. I don’t think you can do it without such a structure – at least not with some intentionality.

“There are actually four options vs three: 1)walk away 2) be subordinate 3) play the game the way the game is played”

Fight, flight, or freeze.

Reminds me of this exchange on twitter yesterday (see screenshot):

Even your “wasn’t that a brush back pitch?” is a brush back pitch.

I can explain why your first response was one too if you want. Yes, my response was also, it was proportional and attempted to match yours (others can give us feedback, ala what Alicia was getting at).

If you are not in the fray, it is all fairly easy to see.

I assume you can’t see this based on your responses, otherwise all of this would be disingenuous…another game…which I am assuming you are not playing. And then, my sense, you are surprised when you get the response from me that you do. If I had to make an assumption, you’ve been throwing brushback pitches your entire life…and they almost always work. (this btw is how low social contact works too…the person has complex and not so complex ways of pushing people away, low interest in peer to peer relationship.)

FWIW…Every email encounter we have…I need to be prepared for it to go one of two ways. In contrast, I have never once felt this way, for example, in opening a single email from Herb or Alicia (in 15 years)

Again, I am making no claims about anything other than I am attempting to be in conversation with you as a peer, not as your superior or subordinate. Nor am I making any moralizing claim, nor saying my behavior is right, yours is wrong or vice versa, etc.

I have made repeated statements around the necessity of this value structure (high compete/high vengeance). Even that the “law of reciprocity,” one of the most important in human relationship, doesn’t work without vengeance, etc. I have been trying to celebrate what CP-Red is in my emails, but also be realistic about what you need to have as capability / values to engage with it.

If you want to be dismissive and snide (my judgement here, others can weigh in…but I think that would be a consensus perspective on your first response) I would then say (making a judgement here)…this is typical dominance win/lose behavior. Really important : it’s not a wrong response…it just creates a set of limited possibilities for the person getting this response. Back to my 4 options.

I choose #3 because it allows me to stay, and most importantly be in productive tension with you elsewhere. I’d say this email is a productive tension though too. If you don’t play the game they are playing, you will get creamed or just need to get off the field.

This might not work for you though. Or as you have said…it is really hard on you.

Again, I have been really surprised to find out that high compete / high vengeance generally means you want to win/dominate (whatever that means in your own mind), NOT necessarily be in conflict with someone. Chase them off the field, assert your dominance so they can genuflect toward you in a submissive gesture, etc. This is mostly in triggered environments, under stress where this behavior comes to the table.

For the longest time, I thought it meant that people wired this way enjoyed conflict…that is rarely the case. A Trump or a Jordan are exceptions in the sense that they need conflict to perform at the highest level. Jordan is legendary for this. He would take the smallest slights and turn them into reasons in his mind to destroy you.

I recall working with an elected official (500-700 hours) that would you make you look like a pussy cat, seriously. NO ONE wanted to be in conflict with him, they knew the price would be a vastly disproportional response…and he would relentlessly wear the other person down until they submitted or walked away, or he got them out of his way, often by destroying them, their reputation, etc. So he generally got what he wanted, no one was willing to play for keeps the way he did…meaning millions of $ for his projects and favorable decisions. Thankfully, he was on my side of the project and we used his capacity continuously to drive a project to conclusion that never could have happened without his value structure with DF.

I learned to play his game his way…VERY carefully. For a 90 minute meeting I needed to allocate 5-6 hours. He was always a minimum of 60-90 minutes late (dominance behavior)…and then would wear you down on everything…I “girded my loins” and just matched his energy…I started coming late to meetings (timing his arrival)…and wore him down…on what I needed from him. When I needed him to move, I wouldn’t budge and just kept coming. We wanted the same thing so it worked. And then I over-delivered, NEVER violated his trust. Had I flinched, not been able to go with #3, the project never would have gotten done. He would have been dominate and we couldn’t have created the right tension. He never stopped trying, including using threats/intimidation…on me! The most important person on the project of all people by a thousand miles. That’s how wired this is. And not only didn’t I try to change him, I often ramped up his expression when we needed it. We were a heck of a team to be honest.

I do make assumptions or rather make conclusions about your statements (because that is how things emerge, and what we do)…but those are based on countless encounters, extraordinarily consistent behavior…and my presumptions that we are who we are. It is possible I could be wrong, highly doubt it. If I was wrong, you would likely point out why I was wrong (about my judgment)


Or…if you have other options than my four, then spell them out. I would be very curious what you think they are. My sense, you’re not shy??…so if you had them you would have put them on the table.

Otherwise, without a substantive engagement on this so that we could actually come to some nuanced or new understandings…I’d stack my 10-15,000 hours in the saddle with high compete/high vengeance people…both professionally and personally, under real load. And ask how many hours in total have you been in a sustained relationship with a high compete / high vengeance person(s) – under real load.. (yes, this is a dominance statement…but this is where these go structurally in conversations that are not a give and take..and looking for discovery, which most of our emails actually are btw.)

Or…WTF are you talking about? Or…can keep ramping up. When it tips into personal innuendo – then you know the end is near. I generally don’t sense we are purposefully trying to do this.

I am btw wide open to exploring where my blindspots are in this if you see them (or others on the list?). Or the assumptions that you don’t think are correct.

Just remember…little of this, for me, has to do with you. It has to do with who I need to be.


My entire reason for writing this was to give example of the trans valuation process. But that has been lost in all of this it appears.

Quick response, I don’t know that there will be another because to go through all of this doesn’t make sense to me, it could make sense for you…

And that leads to another option:

You could stop flapping your wings so much and go into Inquiry?

You model what you tell as your reasons; I disagree that you even understand me at all because like me you’re a skimmer and you mashup a lot of meaning because you’re automatically convinced with a tiny bit of data, I know the syndrome well.

You seldom enter inquiry and really(?) you can do vengeance on the fly because you’re “conscious” of it?

You really miss a lot of points but it’s ok, I use you like you use me for different aims. We both have a lot of flaws anyway you put it;)

All of your reasoning is “defensive” and that which isn’t is offensive! But done very cleverly through inuendo…you are never the issue;)

That’s my take, and we may have to just agree to disagree.


Comments are closed.