Learning - dialogue and advocacy

[Heidi and Dan Chay]

Excellent.  Excellent.  Thank you Artur.  I will digest on this and return after a while.

Grins,

Dan
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Artur F. Silva 
  To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU 
  Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 3:43 AM
  Subject: Re: Learning - dialogue and advocacy


  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/20010920/9ae21456/attachment-0017.htm>