Thoughts on the Defined, Undefined & Open Centers

A major tenet of the Human Design System is that the undefined and open centers play critical roles in our behavioral processes. While the defined channels, centers, and gates are in constant operation because they are hardwired, the behaviors in the open and undefined centers play quite a different role. One might say that we meet the world on our own terms from our defined centers, but that we meet the world on its terms via our open and undefined centers. We quite literally experience the world via the undefined and open centers, and not abstractly but concretely. Further, the immediate impact of the experience of the world via the open and undefined centers is more intense than our normal experience of our own behaviors.

We experience the world via the undefined and open centers, not abstractly but concretely.

Perhaps an analogy will help. Imagine going to the dentist and having braces put on. For some period of time, we would experience the braces quite significantly, be very aware of them in our mouths and they would be often in our thoughts. Typically, during the first few weeks, people alter their behaviors. They smile less, they cover their mouth with their hands, they feel self-conscious, etc. After some period of time, however, we become accustomed to them and hardly notice them at all. That’s how it is with defined behaviors. We were born with them and we are accustomed to them, thus noticing them little if at all.

Now imagine going to the dentist and having braces installed. Then going back 2 weeks later and having them removed. Then waiting a couple of months and returning to the dentist to have them reinstalled. Imagine repeating that over and over for a few years. The chances are small that we would ever become comfortably unaware of the braces. It’s not unlikely that such occurrences, repeated for a couple of years, might result in the person adopting forever a habit of smiling less, covering their mouth, etc.

When we are experiencing the defined centers of another person, it can be intense.

That’s how it is with the undefined centers. We may go days or weeks at a time without encountering in our environment someone who ‘lights up’ those behaviors. When that happens, HDS claims, it’s quite easy for us to overreact in our display of the lit-up process. When we are experiencing the center via the other person, it is intense because we are not accustomed to it. Moreover, because it comes and goes we have developed little in the way of mitigating controls.

This opens the possibility of looking at ‘learned’ behavior as simply more than just learning via the brain, or via observation and mimicry. If you’ve ever been in the presence of a terribly angry person, a terrified person, or a truly grief-stricken person, you know that your experience of them can be quite visceral. We feel the anger or fear. It’s nearly tangible.

Human Design claims that much of our behavior is learned via our experience of others.

HDS claims that much of our behavior is learned via our experience of others, particularly parents, spouses, siblings, and our own children. Particularly those with whom we share an intimate environment over a long period of time. The experience may not be as emotionally supercharged in some homes, but it is real and over time it has a substantial conditioning effect.

Most people have undefined or open centers. Very few of us are hardwired such that all of the centers are linked together. It’s pretty clear that there are survival values for the species in such a dualistic method.

For example, in any situation, there will be people who have a rigid (defined) response to a stimulus based on the fact they are hardwired for a specific response to such a stimulus. Others, however, not being limited by such hardwiring, may have a much more flexible, possibly creative, response to the same stimulus. This ensures that the species, in general, has access to a greater range of possible responses with which to meet any situation.

The defined centers are rigid in their manifestation of the center’s related behaviors.

In his book Non-Zero, The Logic of Human Destiny, Robert Wright suggests that cooperation is a biological imperative. Whether it is or not, it’s obvious that sometimes cooperation can result in a greater payoff to the group as a whole than to the individual members.

Since by definition being open or undefined means that a person will experience others in a fundamental way, most of us have the opportunity to experience and engage in certain behaviors in a number of different ways depending on who we are with. The defined center is rigid in its manifestation of the center’s related behaviors, thus limited in both its potential growth and understanding (but not in its modification). The undefined or open center, however, is in relatively constant flux in its manifestation of the centers’ behaviors. What we take from that, of course, depends on the individual. It can be a way to gain wisdom about the world, or it can be a source of endless confusion.

We all observe significant differences in behaviors between people.

We all observe, I assume, that there are very significant differences in behaviors between people. Some are greedy, some are not. Some are ambitious, some are not. There are those who find it easy to express their thoughts, while others don’t. Some are busy, others aren’t. There are people who are quite tuned in to “me and mine”, while others seem to give that much less consideration.

For some people sharing comes easily, for others it is more difficult. Some are moody, while others seem to be on an even keel. There are those who trust their instincts, while others don’t. For some, appearances matter greatly, while others could care less. Some are extroverted, some are shy. There are people who are very aware of patterns, while others are nearly oblivious. The list goes on and on.

In order for people to function successfully in a group, certain behaviors are necessary.

One person in a group may be hardwired with the willpower to establish rules of possession, to which, those who lack such willpower might acquiesce. This brings some sort of order to social interaction regarding what belongs to whom. Others may have the hardwired behavior to constantly examine their world judgmentally, always looking to see what needs to be improved. If we were all hardwired to lay down the law or be judgmental, I think we’d see considerably more conflict in the world than already exists.

I suspect that most us of would agree, however, that humans in groups do need to have some laws laid down. Plus, an ongoing judgmental process as to the value or correctness of things is of use to the group over time. Even the laws that have been laid down need to be constantly judged and perhaps corrected.

Not being hardwired the same is an interesting framework for understanding behaviors.

Of course, logic demands the admission that all of this is simply a rational explanation, not necessarily a true one. However, I think it safe to say that being rational does not preclude being logical and, in fact. lends itself rather well to being logically tested in various contexts. Personally, I find it an interesting framework for understanding behaviors.

For example, the idea that we don’t all come hardwired with the same behaviors is a logical and reasonable explanation for why people cling together. As well as for what makes the human species so adaptable to change. It is, as well, a logical method to enable humans to both compete and cooperate, sometimes simultaneously.

It offers a reasonable bridge between the nature vs nurture controversy and provides a way to examine some of the seeming vagaries of human behavior. Also, the internal conflicts and the seeming inconsistencies we all evidence over time. In addition, I think it gives new meaning to the concept of Self and Not-Self.

If you enjoyed this blog post, please also see Exploring the Subconscious and Unconscious in 3 Disciplines!

Photo credit: John Thomas