Learning - dialogue and advocacy

[Artur F. Silva]

At 20:30 18-09-2001, Dan Chay wrote:

>Artur writes:
>
> >>
>But this type of message says a lot about the society we are living in. Is
>this world ruled by Bush or by Sharon?
><<
>
>Maybe we can say that part of the reason that so many people respond so
>strongly to such coincidences is that in too many spaces it is not safe to
>make ourselves vulnerable in ways that help us (and others) learn?  Or
>that so many people have had the experience that "judgment kills
>learning," so never got so far as to learn about statistics?  What do you
>think, Artur?

I understand your point, Dan. But my answer is NO to both your questions.
I mean: the fact that some people "respond so strongly to coincidences" is
NOT caused, not even in part, by the fact that some dialogues are not safe.
One has to search for other causes, I am afraid. In my opinion, the hypothesis
you are raising is indeed based on a coincidence (a certain message
followed by a certain one  ;-)

And, the fact that some messages are judgmental has no relation with
people understanding statistics or not. That is not even the main question,
in my opinion. In my mail (that you referred to) I gave a different "possible
interpretation" to the symbols that could be used by someone that "did not
understand statistics" but would be on an opposite paradigm. So the main
problem, in my opinion, is not if one understands statistics or not, but about
the paradigm with which one tries to understand reality.

I am coming back to this question for two reasons; first, because the
question of how to enhance learning is crucial for the OS community
(and indeed I have appreciated that you have changed the subject). And
second, because many people (and many political leaders) are trying
to understand the current situation with a paradigm that was perhaps
good some 20 years ago (or 10 centuries ago...). And, on the contrary,
imo, the problem of terrorism can't be solved by "more of the same"
but only with a completely different approach. "More of the same" is, in
this case, by the way, what we have been trying since the first crusade...

Now, why did I say that I understand your point? In fact, in too many
situations, meetings and forums, people try to advocate and argument
and don't try to dialogue and truly listen to the others. This is where I
agree with you. This point has already been discussed here as well as
in other lists.

But people can be in agreement with that from two different perspectives:
one that says that we must ALWAYS use dialogue and NEVER advocate;
a second one that says that to enhance learning a combination of dialogue
and advocacy must be used.

There is a current model of discussions solely based on advocacy that
inhibits learning (and especially double loop learning) as each person is
trying to win and not loose. This is what Argyris and Schon call "Model 1".

Many people claim that to correct that trend one must NEVER argument,
never show disagreements of opinions and shall always have "dialogue" (that
is what Argyris and Schon call the "contrary of Model 1" - it makes people
feel more satisfied with themselves but doesn't necessarily enhances
learning).

In fact, there are situations where two opposite positions can't be
simultaneously true. For instance, if someone says "the sun circulates
earth and not the contrary" I have no need to try to have a "dialogue" about
that. In most conflicts of paradigms in science, dialogue between the
two competing paradigms is in fact impossible - a new paradigm becomes
dominant, as Khun explained, through different procedures, that I will not
try to develop here.

Because of those and other considerations, some people think that to enhance
learning a correct mix of dialogue and advocacy must be used. One has to
know when one must have dialogue and try to understand the reasons of the
other and when one must advocate (putting oneself in a "vulnerable" position,
where some others may always criticize one for being too much "judgmental" -
which in some forums is indeed a very strong criticism, even if it is
worded like
a simple question - wouldn't you agree, Dan?)

The point is not that we shall always advocate or always have dialogue: the
point is that one must be willing to understand the positions of the others
(and
eventually change one's own positions) and that one is really seeking the
truth,
through "valid information" and "free and informed choice". That is the reason
why Argyris and Schon "Model 2" is NOT coincident to the "opposite to
Model 1".

How to enhance learning (and especially double-loop learning) is currently my
main interest, so I would be willing to discuss this with others
interested, here
or in other forums (indeed I will better explain Argyris and Schon's Models 1/2
in a post to the LO-list in two weeks, and how OST does enhance double loop
learning some time later).

Now, to conclude this long post: in what concerns occidental response
to the terrorist attack to the USA, the time is too short and the dangers
of doing "more of the same" (single loop learning) and initiating a war of
unknown consequences are very strong. Many people in the entire world
(including the USA, as many messages to this list have proved) are
thinking that now is the moment to "act quickly and strongly" (to use
Bush's words) to prevent our political leaders to engage us in a new
crusade with the same effects of the others - in fact, if you recall, the
first ones were already against Islam, and probably we are still suffering
the consequences of them...).

If those people of good and peaceful will can obtain that objective, THEN the
world will be more open to Dialogue and Open Space. And, of course, we
will THEN also enter in dialogue to try to "understand" the reasons of the
people that directly or indirectly are supporting the war position. THEN we
will be glad to dialogue with the falcons and war makers and supporters. If
we are not able to attain that objective, the conditions for dialogue will be
not very good in our world in the future, I think...

Regards

Artur

PS: may I recall that the subject of the original message was:
"Microsoft Word is OBVIOUSLY bringing hidden anti Jewish
hate-messages onto our desktops". And please note I have nothing
against the Jewish people nor in favour of MS...






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20010920/6bb998d3/attachment-0016.htm>