You replied to a posting by Jyotsna saying:
"I propose your own dilemma as an example of the power of the
interrelationship between theory and practical application. According to
some data from the Meyers-Briggs instrument, most of the population (70%,
if my memory serves me correctly) tends to pay more attention to
particular examples and "hands-on" application as you and Robert do ("S"
for sensors). Others tend to pay more attention to broader, overarching
theories or principals ("N" for intuitives). N's tend to want to
synthesize and extrapolate from what they perceive. I suspect that the
folks on this list are mostly N's for at least the following reasons: 1)
As you mentioned, the emphasis in this groups' discussions has generally
been in the realm of abstractions and ideas rather than specific examples
and methods. 2) Who is more likely to believe in something that Senge has
described basically as non-existent -- a process rather than a result --
an S or an N? I am, therfore, assuming that most of the participants in
this group are N's and that you and Robert(?) are S's.
If my hypothesis is correct, this theory of personality traits
helps explain why you feel somewhat incompatibile in this discussion
group. If this were a discussion group that focused on Generally Accepted
Accounting Proceedures or computer programming where the emphasis is more
application oriented and detail-specific (i.e. lots of "S's,") I think you
would probably feel more comfortable with the issues and manner of the
discussions.
" But please don't quit the group, there is a need for many ways of
thinking here! As things stand, there is no map to a Learning Organization
yet. In fact, there's not even a road that every organization can follow,
each must blaze their own trail. To improve this situation, we need to try
to make some generalizations about how organizations may move closer to
being learning organizations. This group can and does serve as a means of
dialogue about what works and doesn't work. It is an efficient means of
scrutinizing the generalizations (hypotheses)."
On the very particular level, I was taken aback, being an "N" in Myers-Briggs
terms and also very interested in applications and how to's. I took your
message to say that N's aren't "like that," and I am.
At the more general level of message-to-message communication, I noticed that
I had understood Jyotsna's message as a request to include how to's in the
dialogue, _not_ to substitute them for the discussion of hypotheses and
concepts. I read your message as justifying why the list would focus on
"theoretical" points. It didn't seem to make room for both kinds of sharing.
As an "N" with an interest in applications and how to's who agrees with what
I understand to be Jyotsna's request, I felt the request was not heard, and
by extension, that my kind of interest was marginalized. Is that what you
intended? I know that's a formulaic response, including a sort of
"prescribed" question. I'm using the form, though, because I don't know you,
I don't know your intention in responding to Jyotsna, and I want to let you
know how your message came across to me while putting myself to the
discipline of not assuming you meant to come across that way! :-) Thanks,
Reed.
Prinny Anderson
Design for Learning
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>