You're cordially invited to ROAR. Jordan here,

You're cordially invited to submit a paper for the inaugural issue of ROAR, the new Research in Applied Relatefulness Journal.

This is a powerful endeavor to

• build our communal body of knowledge
• cross-pollinate new insights, failures, and best practices
• celebrate all the incredible practitioners, innovations, and generally showcase the community

We believe relatefulness has a lot to contribute to civilizational knowledge and inquiry about intersubjective awareness, communication, group facilitation, and the strengths and limitations of our how these practices interface and apply to other fields of study. 

What kinds of papers?

(1)  Cross-modal integration: what happens when relatefulness meets other frameworks in practice? eg: IFS & relatefulness, functional medicine and relatefulness (coming in the first issue)

(2) Practitioner Case Reports: internal relatefulness experiments and best practices. eg: a particular exercise, event flow, or structure 

(3) Field notes / failure reports. failures and lessons learned. eg: 

(4) Theoretical & philosophical contributions exploring the conceptual foundations of relatefulness and advancing new frameworks. eg: I'll be publishing an article version of my Relateful Camp 2024 talk "How Not to Start a Cult"

This is meant to help us see all of our play and exploration as research (because it is) and take part in the larger, ongoing human conversation by being more visible, citable, and propagating what we're doing, what works, and what doesn't, so everyone can learn from everyone and iteration can happen faster. 

Why you?

You get to be a founding contributor to a new field, your work becomes citable, you build credibility as a practitioner-researcher, and you get visibility within a growing community.

If you're not sure, post an abstract to the ROAR UpTrust group and people will weigh in and give you feedback.

Why now?

I'm just really excited for the experiential knowledge interchange for the sake of itself. That said...

We're in an era where our globe's biggest problems require coordinating across wildly different perspectives with very distinct values and desires. 

Relatefulness can be a key contributor to emerging social-psychotechnology (consciously created intersubjective infrastructure) to help people communicate, and find internal peace and sanity amidst unprecedented pace of transformation.

Submission Deadline 

Track 1: March 15th. Your article will be ready for the Camp Preview; a physical artifact at the chow hall at camp that proves the concept and inspires people to submit.

Track 2: May 15th. Full Founding Issue This gives the broader community a real runway to write something worth publishing. The full issue goes up on relateful.com, gets a downloadable PDF, and is available on Amazon.

Details

Formats:
Practitioner case reports (1,000-2,000 words), cross-modal integration papers (2,000-4,000 words), Field notes / failure reports (500-1,500 words); Theoretical / philosophical contributions (2,000–5,000 words)

Review/editorial process.
Submission:
1) Submit draft to a private UpTrust group, anytime starting day of announcement
2) Get community feedback (this is not quality control and you should not assume that all comments are good, it just helps the community get involved in our style) Editorial review proceeds on its own timeline and does not depend on community response. 
3) Editorial review: v1 at least Jordan Myska Allen will review, whether or not you get comments before approval depends largely on the number of submissions; we may expand to a founding editorial board (TBA)
4) Accepted articles will be published in the following:

Distribution/format.
- announced on TTT email list
- announced on Substack
- a linkable, indexable page on relateful.com
- a downloadable PDF
- A printed copy that people can order through amazon (this may not be ready by Relateful camp. But we will have at least one printed copy at the chow hall)

Guidelines:

• Abstract (150-300 words) (unless field notes/failures- (50–150 word abstract is fine)
• Author info: name, relevant background (facilitation credentials, affiliation with Relateful Company, professional practice, academic training, whatever establishes your credibility in the domain you're writing about, and contact email (for editorial use only, not published))
• Originality statement (A line confirming the work hasn't been published elsewhere and is the author's own)
• Conflicts of interest / disclosure: (any relevant personal/financial stakes)
• Permissions (If you reference specific client work/sessions in a practice that emphasizes confidentiality, this confirms you have consent or have sufficiently anonymized)
• Voice: first, second, and third person are all welcome (I, we, it) but no need to label them; use whatever constructs enact the experience you're hoping to communicate, including shifting views if needed. We can't study the relational while pretending there's no I or we. (Drawing from Integral Methodology Pluralism).
• References/citations: We're not imposing APA formatting on practitioners bc we think it'll kill submissions. if you reference someone's work, name them and link to it. 
• Co-authored pieces should list all contributors with individual author info. Designate one corresponding author for editorial communication.
• Authors retain copyright; Relateful Company has permission to publish, distribute, and reprint

(Skipping for V1: Detailed style guides, structured heading requirements, blinded review formatting, cover letters, IRB approval documentation, etc.)

How to submit: Post to here in this ROAR UpTrust group.

Is UpTrust the new twitter meets Reddit ? Does anyone have big hopes for this platform? Do you guys think that this will gain even more traction , while Facebook is in their driest era and Tik Tok is still owned by the president ??? Is the future bright for UpTrust ??

I didn't book an accommodation because of AI generated images. I love AI because it has helped me save hours by automating systems, analyzing SEO, and creating website content.

But today, while researching places to stay in Buenos Aires, I realized that we need to be mindful of when to use AI so that trust is not eroded.

My wife sent me the link to an apartment listed on Booking dot com. This listing had tons of great reviews but several of the images were clearly AI generated. They were generic. Fake looking. This made me question the reviews too, especially since I saw one name repeatedly pop up under different reviews. 

I searched for this property on Tripadvisor and saw customer submitted photos. Here I could see that several of the Booking dot com photos were generated based off the customer submitted ones. And the Tripadvisor reviews were fewer and not as favorable.

We didn't book this place. It may still be a great place to stay. But the use of AI generated images threw me off. 

I feel like I should have a clearer point to make. But I'm also feeling lazy to come up with one.

PSA on using ChatGPT to edit writing- 

We’ve probably all read text that was obviously written by AI. If you’re using AI to edit writing- pro tip: rather than have the tool write anything for you, instead ask it to ask you questions, suggest what you’ve missed in your writing, what you could add to make your message clearer, or to just provide an outline with some notes about what to improve. Explicitly instruct it to not rewrite your draft so you don’t get AI brain. Using this method allows you to get some insights, while still getting to write in your own voice. 🌈

Current Session "instructions" (Mar 5): Search. Search

Check out the search, go find some stuff, get involved with some old convos, find some people, let us know how it feels to y'all!

Thanks and love yall

foundationalcommunity

J (and the UpTrust team)
p.s. this week I'm on

Optional Zoom with Jordan at least, for faces, questions, help, etc

#foundationalcommunity

Supporting bipartisan Bromance? I think I’m starting to hope that JD and Tim can embrace and mutiny on their respective Presidential candidates.

I like that we’re getting deeper into the issues and realizing it’s not a simple issue solved by rhetoric. I like the civility even though the problems are heartbreaking and terrifying.

When it comes "the global warming debate," there are often third ways that are ignored. Often the framing is global warming and climate deniers or something like that.

but it seems like there are obviously multiple perspectives here, and these two black and white boxes keep us from really seeing potential solutions.

Bjorn Lomborg for example believes in man-made climate change, but also doesn’t like the alarmism. Although he cherry picks data like he accuses others of, he also I think rightfully points out lots of flaws in the arguments that help us identify solutions. Much of the hurricane damage increase over time is because we’re building bigger and more expensive houses in hurricane alleys; for this problem, we can stop building there; everybody stopping flying altogether until 2100 delays increases the increase by a few weeks, so stopping flying isn’t the solution. Often the solutions are smaller, more local, less sexy: want less polar bears to die? Increase regulation on poaching. (Polar bear populations are up over the past decade because of this, apparently). I would love to identify and popularize these solutions, so they are spoken in the same breath as global warming rather than it being all gloom and doom and end of the world.

There are real tricky questions about what we’re trying to preserve and for whom, as well. If all we care about are humans and climate migration, then building infrastructure in places like Haiti and even evolving to coal power would be more helpful.

... i wish i could tell what replies are replying to in the feed. i like the replies being in my feed, but want some loose indication as to what or who they are replying to.

Current Session "instructions" (Feb 26): Converse, and see if nudges happen. nudges 

We launched a system where the AI bots can automatically detect intervention points. We need you to make a bunch of comments and new posts to see if they'll engage. So this week we're asking you to engage a bunch, if you can!

It's a little rudimentary at the moment so sometimes you'll get multiple bots responding on multiple posts. We'd love your feedback on which ones you like, don't, when it seemed to miss the spot, anything else you notice. 

Thanks and love yall

J (and the UpTrust team)
p.s. this week I'm at an investor meeting so dara will be with you

# [Optional Zoom](https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86795216050?pwd=TllxSzYrTFFXTW5LRmg3WUQrT04vdz09) with Jordan and Dara at least, for faces, questions, help, etc:

What kind of content do you like engaging with? I’m exploring and uptrusting and experimenting here.

Seems like some of us are into posting musings or frames we Believe In or are currently exploring. Some are treating the space like a Xanga or LiveJournal (which i love tbh). I’ve posted a practical question.

What kind of content are you enjoying? What do you want to engage with?

The pressure to be thoughtful. It’s an interesting thing - this feeling that I need to post something thoughtful here. I’m feeling tension emerge in my abdomen. There’s a belief that there’s a right and a wrong way to engage in this community with no clarity on what is right or wrong. Noticing that and letting that be.