Negotiating While Fractionated

Negotiating while Fractionated

I. What is fractionation? Head-space from hypnosis where the person is still suggestible and vulnerable, posibly euphoric, or otherwise experiencing heightened emotions. Both subjects and hypnotists can experience it, from either doing a LOT of hypnosis, or doing a lot of “going into trance and coming uo to consciousness” repeatedly in a short period of time. Sometimes just being around hypnosis or being at conventions can have an effect.

II. Is there danger in negotiating while fractionated? What negotiation means Different scenarios with tops and bottoms Would I do things that I wouldn't do ordinarily? Would I be able to deal with what happens? Explore general biases as to how mood affect decision making or judgment (See outcomes, attached)

III. How to deal with those possible dangers.

A. Know yourself know as much about your potential partner as possible set strategies - Decide your limits ahead of time, create headspace for yourself, setting boundaries & limits clearly ahead of time in your unconscious, to only go that far, Set internal expectations. Practice saying (no or your safeword while compromised)

B. Avoid pick up play* (you're trusting a stranger when you're in a very vulnerable)state. If you do this anyway, make sure you can trust yourself!

C. Determine parameters together communicate what is and isn't okay. how to make this happen - verbal & kinesthetic signals (hand squeeze, dropping something, etc) check in frame work ahead of time red yellow green /safewords

D. Techniques Be honest about your own experience and ask about the experience of who you’re working with. If you are, think about why are you afraid to communicate? (if you're afraid of communicating something, say that (what good does it do for you to not communicate, when you want to?)) communication strategies to check for understanding:

(people think that they understand each other really well, but they don’t always - put it into your own words to check for understanding)

Practice- reflection. A: I want X. B: What I hear you wanting is X(?). to translate into your own language can me useful for clarity people don't like to admit to the things they're afraid of, that they've done wrong, but if you ask people to clarify, you can come to a greater understanding.

Copyright LeeAllure. Additional research done by AnalyticalPuppet Presented at Charmed 2018/2019 (BOLD indicates which party is fractionated) TOP bottom BOTTOM top TOP BOTTOM turn one or two examples into hypnotheticals operating on the position that everyone is operating kindly and ethically toward themselves and each other pushy bottoms - a top may take on more then they should have "you, consciously or unconsciously are always capable of communicating with me, no matter what state you're in" better communication all the way around (if you're afraid of communicating something, say that (what good does it do for you to not communicate, when you want to?) why are you afraid to communicate? communication strategies to check for understanding: (people think that they understand each other really well, but they dont - put it into your own words to check for understanding) ex fear play - "this is the part of fear play I'm into, and that I'm not , what parts are you into?" (problem it becomes very specific, mincing, detailed) to translate into your own language can be useful for clarity people don't like to admit to the things they're afraid of, that they've done wrong, but if you ask people to create a list which include the things they are afraid of, things that they want, create ambiguity to have people give you multiple kinds of things, that can open up the door for people to admit things. door in the face technique to get some one to do something (ask something big they're more incluned to do the next thing you ask) foot in the door - do something small, then ask for more reward them for doing what you want which techniques might a fractionated person be more likely to fall prey to

Plan to take care of yourself - if you need to stop it, if you need to something specific, to be really clear about it mitigation - self care - how do you make sure everything is going to be okay set what your limits are, expect to be able to use your "safeword" no matter what condition youre in set up - negotiation head space - (How do you get back there? the moment your unconscious detects that you're making a plan)) how do you get them to know /to reach that point of clear headed ness when they're fractionated (set clear guidelines chead of time) renegotiation in a scene is fine as long as you're negotiating down so you're capable of making the best decisions possible q & a - what went wrong what went right

Recommendations based on findings 1. Cognitive load – which can lead to feelings of not having adequate available cognitive resources – can lead to decreased perceptions of risk and increased willingness to accept risk. For those who feel that fractionation diminishes their cognitive capacities/makes thinking harder and/or slower, these outcomes might be avoided by: a. Focusing on something they are afraid of after coming up before negotiating (Fear priming). a.i. Explanation: People perceive greater degrees of risk when they are afraid, which may mitigate the natural tendency to perceive less risk under load. Relevant fears, such as those related to play, will likely be more useful, but the feelings and thoughts associated with general fear provoked by an unrelated stimulus might suffice. b. Automating risk perception as a series of processes directed solely by oneself, and carried out between the Copyright LeeAllure. Additional research done by AnalyticalPuppet Presented at Charmed 2018/2019 end of trance and the next interaction with one’s partner. b.i. Explanation: Cognitive load does not interfere with more automatic processes. Input from another party adds variability that defies automation. c. Not negotiating additional play while fractionated or when either of the above strategies produces ambiguous feelings. 2. Happiness will lead to more favorable impressions of partners and greater risk-seeking. For new partners, subjects should be brought out of trance to a relaxed state, but not one of artificial happiness. i.e. “You enjoyed everything that I did to you, and you are very happy about it.” The unconscious should be accustomed to identi- fying the true source of one’s emotions before negotiating while fractionated to avoid domain specific emotions from influencing perceptions of unrelated people or events. 3. Negotiation under fractionation should not include considerations of what is easy, as cognitive load causes individuals to gravitate towards easy. The unconscious mind should be trained to avoid questions of what is easy, in favor of assessing risk and fear before proceeding into negotiation. 4. Ambiguity and diffusion of responsibility are two insidious but robust predictors of obedience. The unconscious should be trained to recognize that any ambiguity in one’s feelings should end negotiation and should know that negotiation should only continue if the unconscious can be responsible for making consent decisions that are in the individual’s best interests. Findings by Outcome Risk 1. Cognitive load – high occupancy of one’s cognitive resources – leads to a greater reliance on emotion in perceiving risk and less reliance on logic. These judgments may feel more automatic and rely less on conscious thought. a. Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: Interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 278 –282 b. Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological bulletin, 127(2), 267. 2. Cognitive load leads to decreased ability or tendency to adjust decisions after they have been made. a. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, 120-138 3. Cognitive load can lead individuals to less effortful decision making and information processing. Framing a conclusion or outcome as easy can be seen as synonymous with correct. a. Whitney, P., Rinehart, C. A., & Hinson, J. M. (2008). Framing effects under cognitive load: The role of working memory in risky decisions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(6), 1179-1184. b. Hoffmann, J. A., von Helversen, B., & Rieskamp, J. (2013). Deliberation’s blindsight: How cognitive load can improve judgments. Psychological science, 24(6), 869-879. 4. Cognitive load impedes self-control, particularly when the potential value of self-control is made salient. a. Ward, A., & Mann, T. (2000). Don't mind if I do: disinhibited eating under cognitive load. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(4), 753. 5. People perceive more risk when they feel fear. You may be able to get people to negotiate conservatively after fractionating them by asking them to think about something they would be afraid of. a. Han, S., Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2007). Feelings and consumer decision making: The appraisal-tendency framework. Journal of consumer psychology, 17(3), 158-168. 6. Sexual arousal leads to more sexual risk a. Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2006). The heat of the moment: the effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(2), 87–98 b. Ditto, P. H., Pizarro, D. A., Epstein, E. B., Jacobson, J. A., & MacDonald, T. K. (2006). Visceral influences on risk taking behavior. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(2), 99–113 c. Turchik, J. A., Garske, J. P., Probst, D. R., & Irvin, C. R. (2010). Personality, sexuality, and substance

Copyright LeeAllure. Additional research done by AnalyticalPuppet Presented at Charmed 2018/2019 use as predictors of sexual risk taking in college students. Journal of Sex Research, 47(5), 411-419. doi:10.1080/00224490903161621 7. Happiness and anger leads to greater risk-seeking and more optimistic risk assessment. a. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 146-159. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.146 Person Perception 1. Happiness leads to greater perceptions of favorability a. Pham, M. T. (2007). Emotion and rationality: A critical review and interpretation of empirical evidence. Re- view of general psychology, 11(2), 155. b. Forgas, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Mood effects on person-perception judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 53-60. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.53 2. Focusing on the true source of one’s feelings can prevent those feelings from affecting unrelated judgments. Happiness, as opposed to sadness, leads to a number of unwanted cognitive phenomena including making judgments based on relationships rather than item-specific information and relying more heavily on accessibility to make decisions.

It is also possible for sadness to lead to reduced accuracy, particularly when judging others based on relatively little information. This may suggest that the safest mood for check-in is completely neutral.

If somewhat somber moods are to be used for check-in, they might enhance check-in for repeat or well known partners but might lead to greater inaccuracy for new partners. a. Clore, G. L., & Huntsinger, J. R. (2007). How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(9), 393-399. b. Ambady, N., & Gray, H. M. (2002). On being sad and mistaken: mood effects on the accuracy of thin-slice judgments. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(4), 947. c. Ambady, N. (2010). The perils of pondering: Intuition and thin slice judgments. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 271-278. 3. Cognitive load interferes with reflection, leading intuitive judgments to reign supreme. a. Lieberman, M. D., Gaunt, R., Gilbert, D. T., & Trope, Y. (2002). Reflexion and reflection: A social cognitive neuroscience approach to attributional inference. Advances in experimental social psychology, 34, 199-249. Compliance/Obedience 1. People adjust their private beliefs to fit with public consensus when they use it as a form of information. A strong belief in one’s own capability is critical to not letting others’ perception of one’s weakness to affect decision making. a. Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. b. Asch, S. E., & Guetzkow, H. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Groups, leadership, and men, 222-236. c. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous major- ity. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 70(9), 1. 2. The more important it feels to comply, the more likely one is to do it. a. Baron, R. S., Vandello, J. A., & Brunsman, B. (1996). The forgotten variable in conformity research: Impact of task importance on social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 915-927 3. Feelings of ambiguity can create obedience, as the individual lacks a. Allen, V. L. (1965). Situational factors in conformity. Advances in experimental social psychology, 2, 133-175. 4. The need to be accepted is another important motivation that makes people more obedient and susceptible to normative information. a. Kelley, H. H. (1955). The two functions of reference groups. In G. E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 410–414). New York: Henry Holt.