<html>
At 20:30 18-09-2001, Dan Chay wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>Artur writes:<br>
<br>
>><br>
But this type of message says a lot about the society we are living in.
Is this world ruled by Bush or by Sharon?<br>
<<<br>
<br>
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?<br>
</blockquote><br>
I understand your point, Dan. But my answer is NO to both your questions.
<br>
I mean: the fact that some people "respond so strongly to
coincidences" is <br>
NOT caused, not even in part, by the fact that some dialogues are not
safe.<br>
One has to search for other causes, I am afraid. In my opinion, the
hypothesis <br>
you are raising is indeed based on a coincidence (a certain message
<br>
followed by a certain one ;-)<br>
<br>
And, the fact that some messages are judgmental has no relation
with<br>
people understanding statistics or not. That is not even the main
question,<br>
in my opinion. In my mail (that you referred to) I gave a different
"possible <br>
interpretation" to the symbols that could be used by someone that
"did not <br>
understand statistics" but would be on an opposite paradigm. So the
main <br>
problem, in my opinion, is not if one understands statistics or not, but
about<br>
the paradigm with which one tries to understand reality. <br>
<br>
I am coming back to this question for two reasons; first, because the
<br>
question of how to enhance learning is crucial for the OS community<br>
(and indeed I have appreciated that you have changed the subject). And
<br>
second, because many people (and many political leaders) are trying
<br>
to understand the current situation with a paradigm that was perhaps
<br>
good some 20 years ago (or 10 centuries ago...). And, on the contrary,
<br>
imo, the problem of terrorism can't be solved by "more of the
same" <br>
but only with a completely different approach. "More of the
same" is, in <br>
this case, by the way, what we have been trying since the first
crusade...<br>
<br>
Now, why did I say that I understand your point? In fact, in too many
<br>
situations, meetings and forums, people try to advocate and argument
<br>
and don't try to dialogue and truly listen to the others. This is where I
<br>
agree with you. This point has already been discussed here as well as
<br>
in other lists. <br>
<br>
But people can be in agreement with that from two different
perspectives:<br>
one that says that we must ALWAYS use dialogue and NEVER advocate;<br>
a second one that says that to enhance learning a combination of dialogue
<br>
and advocacy must be used. <br>
<br>
There is a current model of discussions solely based on advocacy that
<br>
inhibits learning (and especially double loop learning) as each person is
<br>
trying to win and not loose. This is what Argyris and Schon call
"Model 1". <br>
<br>
Many people claim that to correct that trend one must NEVER
argument,<br>
never show disagreements of opinions and shall always have
"dialogue" (that <br>
is what Argyris and Schon call the "contrary of Model 1" - it
makes people <br>
feel more satisfied with themselves but doesn't necessarily enhances
<br>
learning).<br>
<br>
In fact, there are situations where two opposite positions can't be
<br>
simultaneously true. For instance, if someone says "the sun
circulates <br>
earth and not the contrary" I have no need to try to have a
"dialogue" about <br>
that. In most conflicts of paradigms in science, dialogue between the
<br>
two competing paradigms is in fact impossible - a new paradigm becomes
<br>
dominant, as Khun explained, through different procedures, that I will
not <br>
try to develop here.<br>
<br>
Because of those and other considerations, some people think that to
enhance <br>
learning a correct mix of dialogue and advocacy must be used. One has to
<br>
know when one must have dialogue and try to understand the reasons of the
<br>
other and when one must advocate (putting oneself in a
"vulnerable" position, <br>
where some others may always criticize one for being too much
"judgmental" - <br>
which in some forums is indeed a very strong criticism, even if it is
worded like <br>
a simple question - wouldn’t you agree, Dan?) <br>
<br>
The point is not that we shall always advocate or always have dialogue:
the <br>
point is that one must be willing to understand the positions of the
others (and <br>
eventually change one's own positions) and that one is really seeking the
truth, <br>
through "valid information" and "free and informed
choice". That is the reason <br>
why Argyris and Schon "Model 2" is NOT coincident to the
"opposite to <br>
Model 1".<br>
<br>
How to enhance learning (and especially double-loop learning) is
currently my<br>
main interest, so I would be willing to discuss this with others
interested, here<br>
or in other forums (indeed I will better explain Argyris and Schon's
Models 1/2<br>
in a post to the LO-list in two weeks, and how OST does enhance double
loop<br>
learning some time later). <br>
<br>
Now, to conclude this long post: in what concerns occidental response
<br>
to the terrorist attack to the USA, the time is too short and the dangers
<br>
of doing "more of the same" (single loop learning) and
initiating a war of <br>
unknown consequences are very strong. Many people in the entire world
<br>
(including the USA, as many messages to this list have proved) are <br>
thinking that now is the moment to "act quickly and strongly"
(to use <br>
Bush's words) to prevent our political leaders to engage us in a new
<br>
crusade with the same effects of the others - in fact, if you recall, the
<br>
first ones were already against Islam, and probably we are still
suffering <br>
the consequences of them...). <br>
<br>
If those people of good and peaceful will can obtain that objective, THEN
the <br>
world will be more open to Dialogue and Open Space. And, of course, we
<br>
will THEN also enter in dialogue to try to "understand" the
reasons of the <br>
people that directly or indirectly are supporting the war position. THEN
we <br>
will be glad to dialogue with the falcons and war makers and supporters.
If <br>
we are not able to attain that objective, the conditions for dialogue
will be <br>
not very good in our world in the future, I think... <br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Artur<br>
<br>
PS: may I recall that the subject of the original message was: <br>
"Microsoft Word is OBVIOUSLY bringing hidden anti Jewish <br>
hate-messages onto our desktops". And please note I have
nothing<br>
against the Jewish people nor in favour of MS...<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</html>