Mono wiring vs. poly wiring

[Ceoli]

In an effort not to completely hijack the book recommendation thread, I'm taking this discussion to a new thread.

The discussion started here:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1096

I'm pulling my post that I consider most pertinent to this, but I suggest reading the whole thread to get the full picture.

Of course it doesn't to you.. You are not mono-wired.

What one mind reads as a guide to enable you to realize something, the other mind interprets it as a potential threat. It's really quite simple that two people can interpret the same stimulus differently.

If a punch is thrown at the average person on the street it is usually seen as a pretty threatening thing that elicits a defensive response.

If a punch is thrown at a trained fighter it is viewed as a stimulus that elicits an offensive response.

As a person who works in special needs education and therapy and has a certain amount of knowledge in the area of brain wiring, I have to call bullshit on that. Sorry for the harsh words, but there is nothing to suggest that a mono-wired mind would see the world as differently as you claim, or that something that clearly doesn't make sense only doesn't make sense to me because I'm not mono-wired. (which I dispute anyway. I'm not wired either way.) Yes, two people can interpret the same stimulus differently, but it is a huge and unsupported leap to chalk that difference to being mono-wired or poly-wired. You can say that it's just how your mono mind sees things, but that would have more to do with flawed reasoning than having a mono mind.

First of all, the fighting analogy you use doesn't apply to your claim because a person isn't wired as a fighter. They are trained. So if you're going to use that example, you're essentially arguing against your own "wired" argument.

Second, to chalk such differences of understanding up to wiring is a cop-out. It's a way to absolve a person of the responsibility of having to take the effort to stretch and understand broader ways to view things.

 

[MonoVCPHG]

In an effort not to completely hijack the book recommendation thread, I'm taking this discussion to a new thread.

The discussion started here:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1096

I'm pulling my post that I consider most pertinent to this, but I suggest reading the whole thread to get the full picture.

As a person who works in special needs education and therapy and has a certain amount of knowledge in the area of brain wiring, I have to call bullshit on that. Sorry for the harsh words but there is nothing to suggest that a mono wired mind would see the world as differently as you claim or that something that clearly doesn't make sense only doesn't make sense to me because I'm not mono-wired. (Which I dispute anyway...I'm not wired either way.) Yes, two people can interpret the same stimulus differently, but it is a huge and unsupported leap to chalk that difference to being mono wired or poly wired. You can say that it's just how your mono mind sees things, but that would have more to do with flawed reasoning than having a mono mind.

First of all, the fighting analogy you use doesn't apply to your claim because a person isn't wired as a fighter. They are trained. So if you're going to use that example, you're essentially arguing against your own "wired" argument.

Second, to chalk such differences of understanding up to wiring is a cop-out. It's a way to absolve a person of the responsibility of having to take the effort to stretch and understand broader ways to view things.

Please see our previous thread, Ceoli.

Have a good night, my friend.

 

[redpepper]

I had a conversation last night with someone that considers themselves poly and is pretty mainstream. Their opinion of our poly group and those who were in it was that we were all flakey freaks. They stuck around to hear more and to find some community, but they are not big into books such as the "Ethical Slut." They also don't use the language or live poly in such an intellectual way. I suspect most don't. Most people don't discuss things as we do on here, I suspect. They just live their lives as they need to. They are probably not as fraught with intellectual crap such as definitions as I am, I believe.

My ex-girlfriend is very mono-wired and also feels threatened by poly and the "Ethical Slut" book. She and I tried out non-monogamy and it made her physically sick it went against her wiring so much. She is really struggling with the fact that I am again in a triad and pretty much rolls her eyes and thinks that we are the ones that are fucked in the head. I know a lot of people who think that The whole team I work with does. (I work on a team of 7 staff that supports 16 people with developmental delays and disabilities. I could speak for hours about the mono- and poly-wiring I see in my clients! But that would not be appropriate.) They would never live as I do and have all talked about the possibility and come to that conclusion. They feel threatened by poly also.

I don't know how much of it is wiring and how much of it societal. But does it really matter? The majority thinks this way. End of story. We just have to live our truth and get on with it instead of arguing details. For me, it has become way too personal and dwells on semantics too much.

 

[Ceoli]

I don't know how much of it is wiring and how much of it societal, but does it really matter? The majority thinks this way. End of story. We just have to live our truth and get on with it instead of arguing details.

To me, it matters when people start using wiring as an excuse to not bother to understand a point of view that may be different from their own, or when wiring is used as an excuse to make assumptions about a whole population of people.

I brought this up because Mono claimed that it was his "mono wiring" that caused him to have a different understanding of basic logic and reasoning. It's not about whether people are wired mono or poly, but how much that wiring actually affects how we see things. Scientists have been having that discussion for years and still can't come up with a definitive answer. And it's fine for people to have their own experience of that, but I'm certainly going to call it to task when it is used as a reason to make assumptions about some very basic principles of being a person (especially saying something like a clearly illogical leap of reasoning doesn't make sense to me only because I'm not mono-wired!)

As long as people continue to act as if they are in two different worlds or are two different species of people, it does nothing but create a great mechanism for marginalization. Honestly, a friend of mine put it best: being poly is like being mono, except with more people. Honestly, there's really not that much of a difference, so why do we have to act like there is?

 

[Alexandra]

In posts elsewhere, I've seen Mono refer to his mono-world view as a black-and-white view of things. I thought that was odd when I read it. But then, I'm not really a black-and-white type myself, and I just put it down to differences between people.

And now I'm thinking that the whole mono-poly dynamic is actually a spectrum, with monogamy at one end and polyamory at the other. Somehow that spectrum includes all and any variations, such as polygamy, swinging, etc.

I'm pretty certain that I am poly by nature, but I've been kind of suckered into the dominant normative standard way of doing things by society, family, etc.

I've made a start at trying to open my long term relationship (I started a thread about it here), and so I'm finding these discussions very interesting.

I have often found myself at semantic and ideological odds with people about words and concepts such as have been listed above. And quite often, during the following discussion, friends have said something like "Wow, I never thought about it that way before. That makes a lot of sense..." This kind of response makes it look as if a lot of what people think they think is, in fact, conditioning, rather than hard-wiring.

 

[GroundedSpirit]

I think both Redpepper and Ceoli have made valid points in this discussion.

I relate to Red when she brings up (basically) "Why does it matter?" because sometimes we tend to think ourselves into a "can't see the tree for the forest" situation. And that I agree with!

And yet Ceoli raises the important point that in trying to build broader awareness and better understanding/communication, we have to toss stuff like this on the table occasionally. Being someone with some reasonable background in brain chemistry myself, and trying to stay somewhat current with developments, I also shiver a bit when I hear anyone throw out a statement about being "wired" for anything. That's real dangerous and debatable territory.

But I do firmly believe that one thing we are all wired for is a need for safety and security. And a second high-amperage circuit there is connected to keeping things predicable, known. We tend to resist change, be it in in our lifestyle or our thinking. It requires energy and threatens to pull us out of our comfort zone. We don't like that (most of us).

And what bigger tiger is there to threaten our security and comfy zone than having all the values we were raised with tossed out as bait? But maybe, just maybe, the tiger is paper. Whether to "fight or flee" (that basic wiring) is, in the end, very much an individual choice. Some are braver than others. And some have found lots of paper tigers.

 

[redpepper]

Alexandra, I see it as a bubble where it all floats around, actually, and we gravitate at different times to different things. At least I do.

Ceoli, I think I am getting where you are coming from. I think the problem lies in giving it all the names of polyamorous and monogamous. I get what you are saying when I think of the feeling that is accomplished when one feels "full" as we were talking about in another thread. I feel "full" in a different way than Mono. I feel "full" now that I have the men I do in my life. Mono feels full now that he has his one and only (me) in his life. In that respect, the two definitions and wiring merge. I would not identify as mono or poly in this sense, just in "relationship."

Am I close to getting it?

 

[AutumnalTone]

As a person who works in special needs education and therapy, and has a certain amount of knowledge in the area of brain wiring, I have to call bullshit on that.

In terms of "hard wiring," I'll agree that's the case.

When one considers that we also "wire" our brains by building synaptic pathways via education and training, then one can discuss "wiring" in that fashion and how it affects prehension. If one has firmly-established neural pathways associated with relationships, then different understandings of relationships do go against that "wiring."

Now, as we can change that sort of wiring and "reprogram" our brains, it certainly doesn't doom us to a lifetime of being unable to grasp a different viewpoint or experience. The question is one of finding where the hard wiring leaves off and the soft wiring begins.

There are folks for whom a single, lifelong pairing is the only thing they're comfortable with; others are only comfortable with a series of exclusive pairings; others with a strong pairing and some dalliances on the side; others with two or three pairings at a time; and so on. I suspect there is a spectrum of proclivities due to nature, and then a bunch of modification possibly due to nurture.

So, I see it as a good thing to discuss the differences in outlook. I don't see it as very useful to think that people are locked into a single outlook from the outset and unto eternity, though it's certainly possible, in some cases. I expect most of us have a good deal of flexibility possible in our behaviors and outlooks because we can reprogram our brains in lots of ways, which would make discussions of viewpoints highly contextual.

 

[MonoVCPHG]

I also shiver a bit when I hear anyone throw out a statement about being "wired" for anything. That's real dangerous and debatable territory.

I have a tendency to react swiftly when people question my "wiring" and I think I understand that a bit more through your comments. For me, specifically, because I am the only one who knows what I feel, there is a frustration in repeatedly trying to convey the black-and-whiteness of it all

When the idea of wiring is questioned, I think I probably experience the same emotions as someone who comes out to their parents as gay and they respond with, "You don't have to be gay. You just think you are. You aren't really gay." I personally believe that there are men wired to love other men and women wired to love other women. I think there are also people wired to love pansexually.

I accept the concept of wiring because I live it, just like, for example, I accept that a man's spirit can be encased in a woman's body (although I don't think science has figured that out yet).

I have a basic need for people around me to accept this, not understand it, just accept it. Perhaps I am the only mono-wired person in the world. Who knows?

Thank you for the insights.

 

[Ceoli]

I'm not taking issue with whether people are mono- or poly-wired. I certainly agree that people have inclinations one way or another, and there is a balance that's different for each person between their wiring and their conditioning. What I'm taking issue with is holding that wiring responsible for other characteristics and views that have *nothing* whatsoever to do with being mono or poly.

In the original thread, Mono claimed that his mono brain was making him read a book differently than poly-brained people. I called that into question, saying that it had nothing to do with a mono vs. a poly mind. He then sort of contradicted himself with this. The contradiction lies in the fact that he was talking about how poly people rejected a book he supported, but is actually describing in this how his mono wiring encourages him to reject things.

I think it has everything to do with wiring. Of course, mono minds don't want to swallow open ideas. That is undeniable. We're mono-wired. We don't want to open up because we have no need to. We - don't - want - to. I admit it. It has no appeal to me, no greater sense of learning or mind-expanding qualities, no more evolved concept. I don't see it as a world-sweeping movement or the next stage of evolution in social dynamics. I merely see it as something that some people want and are capable of. I see nothing wrong with it. I see only people being themselves.

This is not a mono/poly issue. This is an open-minded/closed-minded issue. (And no, one is not always better than the other.)

The fact is that a far greater variation exists within any given poly population and any given mono population than exists between the two groups. In other words, poly people are far more different from each other than they are different from mono people and mono people are far more different from each other than they are different from poly people.

So I simply don't buy it when someone says that their mono nature is what makes them black and white. It's a person's black-and-white nature that makes them so. A person's mono nature means that they fall in love with one person at a time. A mono nature is certainly not the thing that is going to make a person read a book differently from a poly person.

It is important for me to take this to task because any time we use fictitious reasons to create divides or to try to create different "species" of people, we're actually putting whole groups of people down. That flawed reasoning is the very same thing that fuels sexism, racism, discrimination against gay, lesbian, bi and transgendered people, and all sorts of other acts of discrimination in society.

 

[redpepper]

In talking to my husband I think I get it a little more. At least I get something. I'm not sure if this is what you are talking about, Ceoli, but I get this: He sees it as quantity vs. quality.

Quantity is a measurement of how many partners/lovers mono- and poly-wired people want. Mono people require only one, and poly an undetermined amount. (For me, three is plenty.)

Quality is a description of the nature of the relationships. Mono-minded people believe of themselves that they are able to have one quality relationship, and that more would not bring them the quality they require. Poly-minded people are able to find quality in the number of people involved in their lives. This is the "fullness" I mentioned before.

That's it, for what it's worth.

(I guess if one doesn't understand the other, then books like The Ethical Slut would be confusing and threatening for a mono-minded person.)

 

[Ceoli]

RP, see the previous post and it might give a better idea of the point I'm making.

 

[MonoVCPHG]

A mono nature is certainly not the thing that is going to make a person read a book differently from a poly person.

It totally does. But I don't expect you or anyone else who is poly-minded to understand that, because you are not mono. When you come up with a working example of what you truly are, feel free to debate what I truly am.

 

[redpepper]

It is important for me to take this to task because any time we use fictitious reasons to create divides or to try to create different "species" of people we're actually putting whole groups of people down. That flawed reasoning is the very same reasoning that fuels sexism, racism, discrimination against gay, lesbian, bi and transgendered people, and all sorts of other acts of discrimination in society.

I'm not sure where you got that Mono is creating fictitious reasons. I know the man very well and have not come across that. He certainly has his own opinion of himself and how some mono people are, but I have never heard him say that he thinks all mono people are like he is. I talk to him in real life and we discuss these things readily. Sometimes what he thinks doesn't come across on here as it should, as it is with all of us, sometimes. Perhaps he has forgotten to say somewhere on here that HE thinks something, or it's HIS opinion, but we all do that sometimes in our passion to get our thoughts across.

I'm wondering where you are going with all this and kind of wish you would get to some kind of point. If there is one. I am saying this with confusion, not judgment, anger or frustration. I am trying hard to understand your arguments with all this. Is it simply that you dislike Mono and what he says? Are you trying to challenge him to make him move forward on the path he is on? Are you in some way processing your own stuff in regards to all this?

Please tell us what it's all about.

 

[Ceoli]

It totally does. But I don't expect you or anyone else who is poly minded to understand that, because you are not mono. When you come up with a working example of what you truly are, feel free to debate what I truly am.

I'm not telling you what you are. However, you're going to have to come up with a lot more support for how your mono nature is what makes you read words differently. And saying "it's just how I feel" really isn't reason enough to create a mechanism that pigeonholes whole populations of people.

I'm not disputing that you see the words differently, but attributing the fact that you see those words differently to the fact that you fall in love with one person at a time is a huge and unsubstantiated leap to be making.

 

[redpepper]

Yeah... sorry, Ceoli. I think it's all just a work in process and you are asking for Rome to be built in one day. I'm not sure that Mono was saying that his reaction to The Ethical Slut, if that is in fact what you are talking about, was to do with how many people he loves at a time. I would suggest that it might be for him and him only, but obviously you are asking him to justify something that he is in the process of understanding himself. One can only go as fast as they go in their process. End of story.

 

[MonoVCPHG]

Yeah... sorry, Ceoli. I think it's all just a work in process and you are asking for Rome to be built in one day. I'm not sure that Mono was saying that his reaction to The Ethical Slut, if that is in fact what you are talking about, was to do with how many people he loves at a time. I would suggest that it might be for him and him only, but obviously you are asking him to justify something that he is in the process of understanding himself. One can only go as fast as they go in their process. End of story.

WOW. Way to back me up. Neither one of you get it, and it's not worth my time to explain it. I'm done. This is seeping into my real life.

 

[redpepper]

Okay, well then, that's it. If I don't get it, then I'm officially backing away.

 

[Ceoli]

I'm not sure where you got that Mono is creating fictitious reasons I know the man very well and have not come across that. He certainly has his own opinion of himself and how some mono people are, but I have never heard him say that he thinks all mono people are like he is. Sometimes what he thinks doesn't come across on here as it should. Perhaps he has forgotten to say somewhere on here that HE thinks something or it's HIS opinion.

Despite the fact that he acknowledges that not all mono people think the way he does, his claim that it is his mono nature that is the thing that causes him to read a book differently, or not be open to an idea, is an awful big claim to be making. If he attributes those things to monogamy, then it would follow that the same mechanisms are in place for everyone who is wired mono, even if the results aren't the same. The fact is, that's not the case. So if not everyone who is wired mono has the same differences that Mono claims, it would then follow that it is something OTHER than his "mono nature" that causes such differences. To say that the "mono nature" is causing those differences is creating a fictitious divide between mono and poly people.

I'm wondering where you are going with all this and kind of wish you would get to some kind of point. If there is one. I am saying this with confusion, not judgment or anger or frustration. Is it simply that you dislike Mono and what he says? Are you trying to challenge him to make him move forward on the path he is on? Are you in some way processing your own stuff in regards to all this?

I'll try to rephrase what I've already said:

This has nothing to do with Mono personally. I could go into all sorts of speculation as to why he would want to cling to this reasoning, but it's beside the point and none of my business. This has to do with putting forward ideas that create divides and that have no substantiation whatsoever.

Again, sure, mono people and poly people have different natures. Mono people fall in love one at a time and poly people fall in love with more than one at a time. This does not mean that mono people are closed-minded because of their mono nature, or poly people are open-minded because of their poly nature. There may be outside relationships between the two different natures, but each nature informs itself first. I know just as many closed-minded poly people as I know open-minded mono people. So it does not mean that a mono person will read a book differently *because* of their mono nature.

Sure, Mono may read a book differently than another person, but a mono person is just as likely to read that book differently from another mono person as they are going to read the book differently from a poly person.

I do not deny that that differences exist, or even that some of those differences are hardwired. But people have a huge number of wired and conditioned natures that exist simultaneously within themselves. To attribute differences that have *nothing* to do with monogamy to a mono nature feels like a cop-out, and a dangerous one, at that, because it tacitly paves the way for all sorts of prejudice and discrimination.

 

[Ceoli]

Yeah... sorry, Ceoli. I think it's all just a work in process and you are asking for Rome to be built in one day. I'm not sure that Mono was saying that his reaction to The Ethical Slut, if that is in fact what you are talking about, was to do with how many people he loves at a time. I would suggest that it might be for him and him only, but obviously you are asking him to justify something that he is in the process of understanding himself. One can only go as fast as they go in their process.

First of all, I post ideas for everyone, not just him. And it had nothing to do with his reaction to The Ethical Slut. It had to do with him suggesting the book Opening Up in the book recommendation thread. You can go back to that thread for reference. It's fine for him to process on his own, and I respect that, but when he's making statements about me on the forum in a general discussion area, then discussions will happen.