<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Excellent. Excellent. Thank you Artur. I will digest on
this and return after a while.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Grins,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dan</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A href="mailto:artsilva@mail.eunet.pt" title=artsilva@mail.eunet.pt>Artur F.
Silva</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
href="mailto:OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU"
title=OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, September 20, 2001 3:43
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Learning - dialogue and
advocacy</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>At 20:30 18-09-2001, Dan Chay wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type="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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>