Blind spot: the dynamic pairs I don't get

questions
#1

The one quad I don’t understand is Permission <-> Deficiency; Need <-> Expediency.

I mean, sure they all seem to go together but to me it seems like Permission and Expediency should be dynamic pairs (they’re so closely related around what you SHOULD do, how you shouldn’t do what’s not allowed, etc.).

Similarly, Deficiency and Need seem like dynamic pairs; they’re practically the same concept – what is required vs. what is lacking. Even the definition mentions “Deficiency is closely related to Need”.

I’m certainly not questioning the model (my own Princess Bride analysis had Deficiency as the OS Issue and Permission as the counterpoint, which both fit absolutely perfectly, much better than if say Need was the counterpoint). But I’m trying to understand my own blind spot here. What is it that I’m not seeing in these dynamic pairs? What’s the axis they have in common, the way all the other dynamic pairs are like two sides of a coin?

I mean, some are obviously related (Logic<->Feeling, Pursuit<->Avoid, Past<->Present to name a few) and some a bit trickier (Denial<->Closure or Rationalization<->Obligation come to mind). Yet even the tricky ones can be understood with a little thought. But this quad just has me stumped!

5 Likes
#2

After posting I remembered this helpful post from Jim:

This helps a little – I mean I can see how Can/Can’t fits with Want and maybe even Won’t. (“You can’t, or you won’t?” mother said knowingly.) Maybe I need to focus on that for a bit.

I can almost see a Need-Should axis too now …

I think perhaps the axes I was seeing (Need vs. Want, Can vs. Should) are the more simplistic, face value type of conflict, but the Dramatica model is zeroing in on something that’s a lot deeper. Fascinating!

6 Likes
#3

Sometimes it helps me to look at a quad I’m having trouble with in conjunction with the MEST quad and what role each square in the quad plays.

If anyone doesn’t know, the roles are that the upper left square is the simplest (most mass-like) process. The lower right is the force that changes the upper left square (most energy-like). The upper right is the medium the first two play against each other in (most space-like) and the lower left is the evolution of the upper right (most time-like). It’s much better explained in the Secrets of the Quad video. I think that’s what it’s called, haven’t watched it in a while.

But in this case, it’s weird to think of “What is lacking” or what is wanted as the force of change for what is allowed. Sometimes I see it, sometimes I don’t. I can kind of see it as what you want to do or won’t do affects or changes what you’ll allow. Then I guess, what is allowed and what is wanted play against each other in the area of what is needed. I don’t know, this is kind of weird. Looking at it this way kind of works for me with this quad, but also kind of doesn’t.

The other thing I do is to try to look at it through the A*B compared against C/D equation. So the way this works is when you separate Permission and Deficiency, you blend Need and Expediency and use that as the measuring stick. So what is allowed would be measured against the stick of what one needs to do to what one should do. That might read something like “This is what I’m allowed to do. Considering that, what do I need, or what should I do?”

I don’t know. I doubt I’m explaining it well, but it works in my head. Maybe try one of those methods to see if it helps?

4 Likes
#4

I’ll take a shot at this, though I’m afraid it may lack elegance.

Permission and Deficiency are both related to how much you have of something. If you have too much, you run up against Permission, which establishes limitations. If you don’t have enough, you run into Deficiency, telling you what’s lacking.

Need and Expediency are more worried about the actual stuff. Under the dynamically opposed Concern, in the same relative positions as Need and Expediency, you see Situation and Circumstance. Situation and Circumstance both look at the same thing, each through a different lens. Situation is stuffier, more reasonable and objective, and Circumstance is more emotional. Need and Expediency have a similar relationship. Need says, “I have to do this because it is required.” Expediency says, “I have to do this… or else.”

The hailstorm of the century is coming. You have two cars but only a one car garage. In other words, only one car is Permitted. The garage has a mass of one. Deficiency steps in, complaining that’s not enough–something will have to change.

Need assesses the situation and gives you your options. You need to expand the garage or get rid of a car. Increase the Permission or eliminate the Deficiency.

Meanwhile, Expediency lies on the couch with the back of his hand thrown across his eyes, reminding you that OMG you’ll be eating ramen and tuna for half a decade if you pay for a new garage, but your new girlfriend really likes that convertible, but you need the truck for work… maybe you should just drive one of the cars under an overpass and wait out the storm…

4 Likes
#5

I’ma take a stab at this too.

So let’s talk teenage girl.

A teen girl has a lack of love in her life, very Cinderella-esque. There is a definite deficiency.
But Step Mother won’t give her permission to date anyone but the Cowherder.
But Cinderella still has the romantic stories of her father and mother floating in her head and NEEDS that kind of connection to be happy. And well Cowherder thinks tipping cows is a romantic date.
So Cindy takes advantage of an approved date with Cowherder to slip away to a private soirée she heard about while shopping in the market to meet the cute boy who was talking to his friend about the party.

Does that help?

3 Likes
#6

Hi @mlucas . For each one in the dynamic pair, they might be closely related but there is a context and/or an element that strongly differentiates one from the other.
For example in my recent study of economics, there is a marked difference between Scarcity and Shortage.

The limit breaker (FF speak: defining factor in this case) is Price.

Price is the element that separates the two.

Scarcity = limited amount of goods vs the population that can consume.
Shortage = normal amount of goods (or even a surplus) but the price makes them unattainable to most of the population.

With Scarcity, there is a physical limitation or lack thereof. But shortage, there isn’t.

For example: Rent control measures in New York. This forces the houses to be beyond the reach of most people , hence the increased incidence of homeless people in times like ,say, the recession.

So with regards to Permission and Expediency, let’s try to look for the limit breaker (sorry for the term) associated with the odd element. That’ll help us appreciate the elements in said quad much more clearly.

Hope this helps.

1 Like
#7

I’m now sure how to apply @khodu’s FF limit breaker here… but as a “context”, could that maybe be the Concern in this case - looking at the quad in the context of Conceiving an Idea? Dramatically, I think of Conceiving as “necessity is the mother of invention”. For instance, @jassnip’s Cinderella has a romantic deficiency (Deficiency/Want) but Stepmother has put a limit on what’s allowed - the Cowherder only (Permission/Can). Cinderella’s Necessity is for a romantic connection in order to be happy (Need/Need) - plus the Necessity for a new idea to get around the rules. Expediency/Should suggests the Invention/New Idea that can answer the need: take the unwanted date and slip out to seek the cute boy.

@etherbeard’s garage and hailstorm example might be worked the same way - Necessity/Need is driving for a New Idea: Expand the garage or get rid of the car? While Expediency comes up with the workable solution/idea invention to answer that Necessity: drive one of the cars under an overpass and wait out the storm.

Or creative invention driven by the limitations of artistic forms: There are strict rules (Permissions) for what makes a poem a sonnet or a haiku, and my grade 11 English teacher always said it was those limitations which inspire the artistic invention. The Deficiency is that our grade 11 student hasn’t the confidence, experience, or desire to write that poem. But our student Needs to write that poem or fail the course, which is going to drive the invention of a brand new 13-line poem by 8am next day - or a way around it. Expediency answers - just write the damn thing, who cares if it sucks - or steal it off the internet.

2 Likes
#8

Thanks for all the great responses everyone. In the process of digesting them all I think I figured out my problem here.

It wasn’t so much that I couldn’t see any association between the dynamic pairs, but rather, that I saw such a strong association between the vertical (dependent) pairs. And mistook those for dynamic pair associations when they weren’t.

Now that I’ve taken the time to post this and think through all the great responses, I can definitely see the associations that exist between Permission<->Deficiency, and Need<->Expediency.

In case it helps anyone, here are my thoughts on the connection between Permission (can/can’t/allowed/permitted) and Deficiency (want/lack):

  • Disallowing something sets up a potential deficiency – someone may now suffer a deficiency because of what is not permitted. Even allowing something sets up potential deficiencies because permitting too much can lead to a lack (think of web security here, lax access permissions create a site that is deficient in security).
  • Going the other way … When you lack, you either permit yourself to continue in that lack, or you must struggle (however you can) against what is allowed, in order to fulfil what is missing.

(I’ll try to write down the same kind of thoughts for Need <-> Expediency when I get time.)

4 Likes
#9

I think this is pretty close. Not satisfied with my previous suggestions, I thought about it some more today and went through a very similar stage of trying to look at Deficiency as Disallowed. I think that seeing Deficiency as Disallowed is a good start to seeing Permission and Deficiency as opposites, but it doesn’t quite get you all the way there because a lack of something isn’t always from an active disallowing of something. Say you were trying to conceive of a light bulb and knew you would need a filament that wouldn’t burn away immediately but lacked the knowledge of what type of filament would work for that. You haven’t been actively denied that knowledge, you just don’t have it. I guess it could be said that you’ve passively denied yourself that knowledge by never having searched for it, thus the lack. Now I that I think of it like that, thinking of it that way is kind of working for me when seeing Permission and Deficiency as more like opposites.

My final suggestion is that, as you know, the word in the box doesn’t matter. It’s the position of the box that’s important. In this case-and I look forward to a slap on the wrist because this probably isnt exactly right-Permission is like the Knowledge of coming up with an idea. Knowing what idea or what kind of idea is needed, and what can and can’t be done as it concerns coming up with an idea, or what will or won’t work (you can’t marry someone you just met to conceive of happiness through marriage!)

Deficiency is like the Thought of coming up with an idea, considering what ideas we need to come up with or what is missing from the idea we have (I’m concieving of marriage, but need someone to get married to).

I was going to go a little further, but I think my explanations and examples are probably already a little sloppy (sorry for that, btw) and the way I’m looking at Knowledge of Permission etc, May be wrong or confused anyway.

4 Likes