Learning&Conversing LO9426

VRAnderson@aol.com
Sat, 24 Aug 1996 16:48:04 -0400

From: Prinny (Virginia) Anderson
Date: Sat., 24 August 1996
Subject: Learning and Conversing

Introduction and the Reply

By way of introduction, I am Prinny Anderson, a management training and
development consultant (Design for Learning, Boston area) who has been
involved with LO concepts for a number of years. I'm interested in how any
and all LO disciplines are being applied within organizations -- hence my
interest in this list. I am also a student of Native American traditions and
shamanic practices, and frequently ask myself how, in the late 20th century,
we can find ways of using techniques familiar to our ancestors for millenia
-- or not!

Replying to LO8948, from Jack Hirschfeld

Jack commented:

"I have reason to believe that this type of conversation (typing outside of
real-time exchange and somewhat anonymously) has attributes which will
improve the chances of successful inquiry; but it just ain't easy.

"Is there anyone reading this who has had extensive experience in
practicing dialogue, who can comment on the relative strength of this
medium in pursuing inquiry? "

I don't want to claim _extensive_ experience in practicing dialogue, and
here's the experience that I do have. I have taken Bill Isaacs' Foundations
of Dialogue course and had some advanced work with Glenna Girard. Five of us
co-convened a dialogue group that ran for 2 years following the Foundations
course, and I sat with a Woman's Dialogue Group convened by Jody Isaacs from
Sept. 95 - June 96. I have participated in the Turning Point electronic
circle of past participants in the Bretton Woods/Mohonk gatherings called by
Sheryl Erickson, and I've been reading this list since May.

>From that basis, here's what I observe: Both face-to-face (F2F) and
electronic dialogues are capable of ignoring all the practices of dialogue
:-) Both can fall into the pattern of "jumping" from thread to thread
without deep inquiry into or wide sharing on a thread.

F2F has the capacity to create sense of deep sharing and warmth which I
believe is enhanced by the physical presence of the participants and the
sharing of non-verbal interactions (smiles, looks, touches, hugs, tears,
shared kleenex, sighs). In F2F, I am sometimes moved to inquire about a
contributor's reasoning process _because_ of the body posture or facial
expression, although the words alone did not stimulate my interest.

One capacity that I appreciate in the electronic medium is the relative
endurance of the text messages. I can reread someone's words _before_
dashing out a reply. In the Turning Point Circle, I have been moved from hot
reaction to inquiry by the chance to reflect on what someone else wrote. I
can reread my own responses, which sometimes helps me see the assumptions
that I'm making and the line of my own thinking -- not always flattering, but
almost always instructive, and sometimes salvation from a bit of
embarrassment.

I would be very interested to hear from anyone else with dialogue experience
about how they find the F2F circle in comparison to the electronic list.

Prinny Anderson
Design for Learning
277 Washington St.
Arlington, MA 02174
VRAnderson@aol.com

-- 

VRAnderson@aol.com

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>