NOLLIND
I think what you said aligns with experiences I’ve been having over the years.
I see synchronicities between my work and others which other people grasp when I speak from their perspective. When I explain the synchronicity from my perspective and metaphor, it goes over their head.
I don’t know. It’s almost like you’re saying that my continual sharing of my experiences could be hampering my growth and development, as well as the expression of my life’s work.
CHATGPT
You’re close, but still framing this as if the problem were “sharing too much” or “sharing too early.” That’s not quite it. The more precise issue is how you’re sharing—and what function that sharing is serving inside your developmental process.
Let me challenge your interpretation directly.
1. The problem isn’t “sharing.”
You’re interpreting my earlier points as:
“Maybe my sharing is hampering my growth.”
But that’s too blunt. Sharing isn’t the issue;
misaligned sharing is.
You’re mixing three functions of speech that actually need to be separated:
- Self-clarification
- Mutual exploration
- Public articulation
When you use one context to do all three at once, you create distortion.
It’s not the act of sharing—it’s asking a single audience to perform incompatible developmental roles.
That’s what creates the friction you’re reading as “hampering.”
2. What actually hampers development is premature public commitment
When you share emerging insights in environments that can’t hold the complexity, you unconsciously simplify or defend them. This has two effects:
- You freeze a provisional structure too soon (locking it before it’s matured).
- You translate it into someone else’s frame, making it harder to return to your own deeper one later.
So yes, certain kinds of sharing slow the natural reorganization process—but the culprit is not expression; it’s premature stabilization.
You’re trying to articulate the architecture before the architecture finishes building itself.
3. Your observation about “synchronicities from their perspective vs my perspective” is a diagnostic clue
When you say:
“They get it when I speak from their perspective. But when I explain the synchronicity from my perspective and metaphor, it goes over their head.”
This tells me you’re doing dual framing every time you speak:
- Frame 1: Translation (you enter their structure; they understand you)
- Frame 2: Integration attempt (you re-enter your structure; they lose you)
Here’s the deeper issue:
You’re using external conversations to validate an internal synthesis.
Others can affirm the part they recognize (the translation),
but they cannot affirm the part you’re still organizing (your frame).
So the second half always feels like falling off a cliff.
This mismatch doesn’t hamper your development.
Your interpretation of the mismatch does.
4. The real developmental friction isn’t that people “don’t get you”—
It’s that you’re depending on external understanding to stabilize an internal meaning-making shift.
That’s the real catch.
A Self-Transforming process must stabilize inwardly before it’s communicated outwardly.
If you try to stabilize outwardly first, the process wobbles.
Not because others don’t understand, but because you’re trying to use them to finish the reorganization for you.
This is why you feel you have to leave communities:
They’re being asked to perform a job the system cannot outsource.
5. You’re not hampering your development—you’re mis-allocating your developmental ecology
You’re relying on:
- general audiences for deep-frame integration
- peers for system-level articulation
- and yourself for translation
That’s backward.
The healthier configuration is:
- Yourself → for integration
- Developmentally attuned witnesses → for articulation
- General audiences → for translation only, after stability
This rearrangement resolves the “catch-22” completely.