Shared State Theory of Communication


“Only rational relationship is relationship.”  ~Shivastus Solomonicus

When I was meditating on my definition of what a rational relationship was I realized that a lot of people try to define the rational person living in a vacuum, but human beings don’t live in a vacuum.  Humans are political animals that seek out relationships and groups, so a rational person can only be defined in a relationship, specifically a rational relationship in a rational environment and then if the person remains consistently rational without deviation consistently they are rational.  But we don’t find a lot of other rational people and almost no rational environments (environments and people that are not strategic), which makes it difficult to define, describe, recognize, and be a rational person.  

Some people tell me that everything is rational and they are referring to an ability to rationalize everything to make it look rational, I do not subscribe to this narrative.  Using my system we can break down specific behaviors, strategies, and events to determine if they are rational or not.  

If I ask people if they are rational the vast majority will say that they are, and they are thinking of the times when they are rational and not the times that they behave irrationally, but what we find is that the instances when you are irrational define you much more as being rational or irrational than the times when you are rational.  You have to remain consistently rational.  It isn’t the 37 years of rational life that define you as rational it is that 24 hours when you climbed into the clock tower and started picking people off with a sniper rifle.  You can’t define rationality without examining the relationship and the environment.  

I came up with the value system of relationship. Which is to say that value is maximized for the people in relationship, one doesn’t create value for people outside the relationship from the relationship, this is a subtle act of theft.  I call it the wolf pack mentality you go into the world (irrational environment)  make your kill and drag it back to the wolf pack (rational environment).  Aequalitatus sub ratio or equality under reason, means that the relationship is a meritocracy of reason, you move about freely based on merit of superior reason.  You always comport yourself in such a way as you maximize value for the relationship and you are constantly looking for a way to increase your means of increasing value.  The people that argue this point are bad at relationship and I wouldn’t want them in my wolf pack, but they would still gravitate towards it to offer their unwanted opinions, to steal from the surplus of the wolf pack, and to sabotage the wolf pack if they couldn’t have their way.  Pleasant, douchebaggy, moral authorities a.k.a. douchebags or functional psychopaths, or self appointed moral authorities.  

The curious thing about value is that it is created for someone else, and value is negotiated from two different perspectives.  If I create value for myself from relationship that is an act of theft.  The negotiation needs to be arrived at through communication and it needs to create value for both parties, a win win.

The only opinions that matter are those of the people in the relationship, the opinions of the people outside the relationship don’t matter.  If you can’t reach an agreement inside the relationship you leave the relationship.  Incorporating the opinions and judgments of people outside the relationship in order to leverage yourself in the relationship is a violation of relationship and an overt act of theft. It is a desecration of the sacred nature of relationship.

I realized that what I was describing was the philosophical relationship between two philosopher kings.  I was describing the relationship of everything.  The wisest person who gets the best result leads and everybody follows and tries to keep up.  This relationship is a business relationship, a religious relationship, a scientific relationship, a political relationship, and a philosophical relationship.  What we find is that people in this relationship have to communicate in a specific (not vague) way towards a solution (clarity, cogiency, profundity, brevity).  Furthermore, if it is necessary for a person to learn something or to modify their behavior for the benefit of themselves and the group it is irrational if they don’t do it.  Which means that sustainability or the success of the relationship or mutual endeavor is a prerequisite for the definition of the rationality of the relationship.  This also means that a person not doing something that is necessary for the success of the endeavor is an irrational action, argument from ignorance is not an acceptable excuse, for the loss of value or the failure of the endeavor.  So not acting can be considered an act of evil or an act of depreciation. 


I realized that what I was describing was a relationship in which people only related to one another positively and rationally which means constantly increasing each others qualities, reputation, and resources.  This was a relationship of mutual appreciation which is the opposite of the relationship which I always try to avoid and want to have nothing to do with which is the relationship of mutual propertization or mutual slavery.  But back to describing the form of the good.  If it wasn’t true, useful, pleasant or solution oriented you couldn’t say it, do it, and you shouldn’t be thinking it.  This relationship, over time, would turn both people into philosopher kings, famous individuals, rich individuals, business tycoons, moral authorities, martial arts experts, etc.  They would essentially become godlike.  They would become like Adam and Eve or Isis and Osiris, I realized that what I was talking about was the alchemical marriage of the medieval chemists or the tao of taoism, the third eye or 6th chakra in yoga.  The problem is that people are lazy, weak-minded, and horrible at relationship now.  


If you think about Bodhidharma he taught kung fu to strengthen the body and the mind for meditation.  Also in ancient Greece people were encultured into society through the Gymnasium where they taught philosophy, ethics, acceptable conduct, pankration, pugilism, and greco-roman wrestling.  

So what we come away with is that the rational man must have the ability of introspection, he must be self aware, he must be self-controlled, and self-disciplined.  He must be able to scrutinize, criticize, discipline, himself and know himself correctly.  This is not easy, this requires the philosophical death, this requires the killing off in oneself of all delusion, this requires the systematic slaying of one’s ego.  This is also not normal since the vast majority of the population has a cognitive bias known as “bias confirmation”:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explainattitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).


The rational person instead of being natural must make himself unnatural doing things that do not come naturally to human animals.  Trying to prove himself wrong instead of prove himself correct.  Communicating in such a way as he can be falsified if he is wrong.  Wanting to know that he is wrong if he is wrong, loving truth more than he loves his world view.  But the problem that we run into is that people project their sense of self (plasticity of the sense of self) onto their world view, and falsifying it has negative survival data for them, it feels like a piece of them is dying.

Once we get over this hump, the ego, we can start moving towards super ego.  Until we kill the ego it will continue to encumber us and slow us down.  Ego lives off charity, it begs for mercy, it negotiates for its continued existence, for the delay of it’s execution (understanding), it refuses to participate with reason, and it won’t change until it is forced to change.   Nirvana or Ataraxia is the death of the false self, the death of the ego.



I created the shared states as a way for a person to become aware of themselves and their internal world including their emotional states and the things that they are in relationship with.  Anytime we change states we act differently, think differently, we edit our consideration state differently, we are essentially a different person.  It is important in the rational relationship, in order to be consistent, that we are predictable or known to ourselves and to those people we are in a rational relationship with.  Which means that we communicate ahead of time and that our communication is predictive of our behavior.  We can be relied upon, to participate when the time has arrived.

If you just almost got into a crash you are in relationship with that and that warps your emotional state.  Whatever state you are in you communicate that state.  If you are in a state of fear you act fearful, you communicate fear, or you conceal fear.  Likewise with all emotional states.  Each state is a personality.  One needs to observe one self like a scientist, one needs to know when one is in a state, one needs to communicate that one is in a state.  If we act from certain states we get bad results.  In some states certain actions yield good results and other actions yield bad results.  We need to know what these are, we need to be able to predict and control our own states.  We also need to be able to control our actions and influence our own emotions, we need to know when to act and what actions to take, and which states are the best for certain actions.


The problem that we run into with the averseness of the mind is that the mind it 10x more interested in avoiding things it doesn’t want than it is in moving towards the solution.  Paul Ekman calls this an “auto appraiser”, when we have had an experience we never want to repeat our mind creates an emotional scar and starts scanning our environment for evidence of the thing we want to avoid.  This causes problems in relationship as the male and female mind have different and antagonistic refractory states.  A refractory state is a term coined by Paul Eckman and I used the concept in my models.  For him a refractory state is a negative emotional state, a state of emotional morbidity, being in a permanent refractory state is synonymous with being crazy, from his perspective and I agree.  We see this with histrionic psychopaths that use their damage or emotional morbidity as a source of power.

Now the problem that we run into with men and women is that women will agree with what I am saying because it sounds good and rational, but in the application of it they fail.  The reason is that in their hearing of it the tacitly judge and interpret it from a feminine perspective and the female mind works differently from the male mind ( the female mind operates from moral authority and the male mind from sapiential authority, the female mind is sentimental, it thinks emotionally and in America men and women think like women.)  Furthermore people have the cognitive bias that tells them that their experience of the world and judgments of the world are correct and that everybody thinks like them and if they don’t they are wrong.  So when the guy in the relationship expressing himself naturally says that he is attracted to other women or he wants to look at porn the female either ignores him, or judges him, or decides to punish him or in some other way sabotage him.  She completely ignores his desires, and holds her opinion and desires narcissisticly as morally superior to his own.  We find that the feminine narrative/mind while being very sympathetic and supportive of itself wanting the things that women want, babies, affection, etc. is at the same time hostile and unsympathetic to the male mind while demanding his happy participation and agreement.  Which means that he is in relationship with her for her benefit while not being allowed to express himself or be himself, which is again not a relationship.

Nowhere is this problem more apparent than in the United States.  If you look at other relationships throughout history and in other countries you find a completely different approach that allows a compromise for human desires, sexual desires, masculine desires, and men have more rights in other countries than they do in the United States.  As a matter of fact every other country in the world is more sympathetic to men and masculine desires and thoughts than the United States.  It wasn’t always that way though.  The founding fathers got to roger all the slaves they wanted, just as ancient kings had gyneciums, harems, and concubines.  We are the most female minded country in the world.  Science doesn’t know why their is a generational decline in testosterone because their is no viable reason for it.  But I do 🙂 .  It is because of the forcing of female values and female communication rituals.  The demonization of masculinity in the united states, the undeclared war on men.  When you aren’t allowed to hold masculine opinions, or have masculine values, or act like a man, or use masculine communication rituals without being thought poorly of and being punished and humiliated as a society it creates a counter incentive to being a man.  This country is turning men into women.  In relationship after relationship i have observed how women judge me, manipulate me, control me, punish me, all in an attempt to turn me into the man that is perfect for them.  Who the fuck are you  that you deserve a ken doll designed perfectly for you to be a supporting character in the fairy tale that you are telling yourself to yourself while he is providing it for you in a world that is becoming increasingly hostile to men and sympathetic to women???  Everything in this economy, body politic, educational system is being scaled down for women and to meet feminine judgments so that women not only have more support but  men are being counter incentivized and sabotaged.  But women bravely pick up the banner from the battle field from a war that was won long ago and never declared and they courageously start kicking that dead horse all over again.





One thought on “Shared State Theory of Communication”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s