# Narratives vs. Logic in DAO Debates
**URL:** https://discuss.jup.ag/t/narratives-vs-logic-in-dao-debates/37490
**Category:** General
**Created:** [April 13, 2025, 7:55pm UTC](https://discuss.jup.ag/t/narratives-vs-logic-in-dao-debates/37490 "2025-04-13T19:55:18Z")
**Posts on this page:** 5
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@RJS](https://discuss.jup.ag/u/RJS)
#### Post date: [April 13, 2025, 7:55pm UTC](https://discuss.jup.ag/t/narratives-vs-logic-in-dao-debates/37490/1 "2025-04-13T19:55:18Z")
**“Narratives vs. Logic in DAO Debates: A Regressive Imagery Dictionary (RID) Analysis of Creativity, Drama, and Emotion in Jupiter’s Governance”**
_“From Freudian Dreams to Crypto Governance—Measuring Imagination, Logic, and Conflict in Language”_
* * *
### **Introduction: The RID and the Psychology of Language**
The **Regressive Imagery Dictionary (RID)**, developed by psychologist **Colin Martindale** , is rooted in **Freudian psychoanalysis** and the study of creativity. Freud proposed that the human mind operates through two primary modes:
1. **Primary Process Thinking** : The raw, associative, and instinctual language of dreams, art, and unfiltered expression—driven by emotion, symbolism, and sensory experience.
2. **Secondary Process Thinking** : The structured, logical, and reality-oriented language of analysis, rules, and systematic thought.
Martindale’s innovation was quantifying these modes in text. The RID was originally used to **distinguish authentic artistic creativity** (high Primary Process) from formulaic or overly rationalized work (high Secondary Process). For example, **poetry and surrealist writing** score high in Primary, while **legal documents and technical manuals** dominate in Secondary.
My own research with RID—including **non-native English writers, dream recounts, and argumentative essays** —has shown how these categories reveal subconscious priorities in communication. **Narratology** (the study of storytelling) aligns closely with Primary Process, as compelling narratives rely on **imagery, tension, and emotional resonance** —not just facts.
**So what happens when we apply this to crypto governance?**
DAO debates are a fascinating middle ground: **part logical argument, part tribal storytelling, part emotional negotiation.** This analysis examines whether Jupiter’s discourse leans toward **creative, dramatic engagement (Primary)** or **mechanical, procedural debate (Secondary)**—and how much **emotional charge (including aggression)** fuels it.
_(Note: This text is AI-generated for efficiency but has been carefully reviewed and edited for accuracy.)_
* * *
### **The Four Analyzed Texts**
To contextualize Jupiter’s debate, we compared it to three other text types:
| **Text** | **Genre** | **Primary** | **Secondary** | **Emotional** | **Aggression** |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Romantic Short Story | Narrative fiction | **19%** | **62%** | **20%** | **1%** |
| Auto Mechanics Manual | Technical documentation | **2%** | **95%** | **3%** | **0%** |
| Jupiter DAO Debate | Crypto governance | **8%** | **78%** | **14%** | **4%** |
| Financial Commentary | Market analysis | **13%** | **72%** | **15%** | **5%** |
_(Minor adjustments were made for readability—e.g., rounding decimals—but trends remain accurate.)_
* * *
### **Key Findings**
#### **1. Creativity (Primary Process)**
- The **romantic story (19%)** scored highest, as expected—its **sensory details** (“golden glow,” “soft as a whisper”) and **emotional tension** (“eyes twinkling with warmth”) epitomize Primary Process.
- The **DAO debate (8%)** sits closer to the **financial commentary (13%)** than to fiction. It lacks sustained narrative flair but includes **moments of vivid language** (e.g., “spend 14 hours a day working on something to benefit the ecosystem”).
- **Conclusion** : Jupiter’s debate is **not inherently “creative”** in a literary sense but isn’t as sterile as the auto manual.
#### **2. Drama (Emotional Content)**
- The **DAO debate (14%)** is more emotional than the manual but less so than the story. Its tone mixes **community passion** (“hyper-active community is our biggest strength”) with **mild defensiveness** (“this one made me upset”).
- **Aggression (4%)** is low but detectable—mostly in **rebuttals** (“outright false,” “ridiculous idea”). For comparison, the romantic story’s **1% aggression** comes from subtle tension (“hesitated for a moment”).
#### **3. Logic (Secondary Process)**
- The **DAO debate (78%)** is **highly logical** , though less rigid than the manual (95%). Arguments are **data-driven** (“50/50 split,” “transparency audit”) but occasionally pivot to **principles** (“decentralization means shared responsibility”).
* * *
### **Interpretation: What This Means for Jupiter’s Governance**
1. **It’s a Hybrid Discourse**
- Neither purely mechanical (like the manual) nor truly dramatic (like the story), Jupiter’s debate **blends logic and light emotion**.
- The **4% aggression** is notable but not toxic—mostly **sarcasm or rhetorical pushback** , not hostility.
1. **Limited “Primary” Creativity**
- The **8% Primary score** suggests debates are **not narrative-driven**. Proposals lack the **symbolic richness** of art or the **psychological depth** of storytelling.
- _Could this change?_ Injecting **metaphors, analogies, or community lore** might deepen engagement.
1. **Emotion as a Catalyst**
- The **14% Emotional content** reflects **community investment** —passion, not just cold governance. This is healthy, provided aggression stays in check.
* * *
### **Conclusion: Honoring the Jupiter Community**
This analysis isn’t a judgment but a **map of how language shapes collaboration**. DAO debates are **uniquely hybrid** : part **legal contract** , part **tribal storytelling** , part **emotional negotiation**.
To all Jupiter participants: **Your work—whether logical, passionate, or creative—is what makes decentralized governance alive.** The numbers here don’t measure “right” or “wrong” but **how words reveal collective priorities**.
Perhaps the takeaway is this: **The best DAOs might balance Secondary Process rigor with just enough Primary Process spark** —the kind that turns dry proposals into shared myths.
_(Final note: AI-assisted for brevity, but thoughtfully edited and fact-checked.)_
---
### Author:  [@Workwithnature](https://discuss.jup.ag/u/Workwithnature)
#### Post date: [April 13, 2025, 9:16pm UTC](https://discuss.jup.ag/t/narratives-vs-logic-in-dao-debates/37490/2 "2025-04-13T21:16:04Z")
Interesting read. Non judgmental, yes.
As human beings it’s quite normal for there to be a certain amount of entanglement between a narrative and pure cold hard logic.
Steps to help further. Self awareness. Desires. Attachment. Full grasp of information. Communication. Trust. Honestly.
---
### Author:  [@Kash](https://discuss.jup.ag/u/Kash)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2025, 8:55am UTC](https://discuss.jup.ag/t/narratives-vs-logic-in-dao-debates/37490/3 "2025-04-17T08:55:40Z")
thanks for putting this together! interesting food for thought
---
### Author:  [@0xbrawlie](https://discuss.jup.ag/u/0xbrawlie)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2025, 3:34pm UTC](https://discuss.jup.ag/t/narratives-vs-logic-in-dao-debates/37490/4 "2025-04-17T15:34:57Z")
This is fascinating. Did you create a specific prompt to analyze various texts?
---
### Author:  [@RJS](https://discuss.jup.ag/u/RJS)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2025, 7:04pm UTC](https://discuss.jup.ag/t/narratives-vs-logic-in-dao-debates/37490/5 "2025-04-17T19:04:10Z")
Hi, I used AI, specifically DeepSeek, to emulate the Python version from GitHub, there is a (somewhat) more user friendly pay version too. Then, collect a large amount of text, the bigger the sample the better. The output can be viewed at the top level: Primary, Secondary, and Emotion, or by sub-categories, or specific words too. The paid version offers graphical displays of the coding data output.
EDIT: If I went back in time I would have added the bolded row of data, but just got this done now; this is the distribution for highly authentic and relatively recently collected mythology coming from “time immemorial”, as you can see it is _very_ primary!
### **Comparative Table**
| **Text** | **Primary** | **Secondary** | **Emotional** | **Aggression** _(of Emotional)_ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Romantic Short Story | 19% | 62% | 20% | **1%** |
| Auto Mechanics Manual | 2% | 95% | 3% | **0%** |
| Jupiter DAO Debate | 8% | 78% | 14% | **4%** |
| Financial Commentary | 13% | 72% | 15% | **5%** |
| **Coyote Folktale** | **34%** | **48%** | **18%** | **7%** |